Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Library Perceptions 2023: Results of the sixteenth International Survey of Library Automation

by , May 1, 2023.

The International Survey of Library Automation provides a unique opportunity for libraries to evaluate their core technology systems, their associated vendors, and to offer their views on relevant topics and trends. This sixteenth edition of the survey received 2,750 responses. The 45,763 cumulative responses received since 2007 document interesting and important trends related to key technology products and vendors.

2022 the International Survey of Library Automation
This report is an original publication
of Library Technology Guides.
Notable Observations
Interest continues to build for open source products, especially FOLIO and Koha. The migration intentions given by libraries using legacy products mention FOLIO more than other products. Libraries using Sierra seem especially interest in open source options, with 48 mentioning FOLIO as a consideration and 22 mentioning Koha. Open source products are a routine option for public and school libraries as well. Both Koha and Evergreen show increasing levels of satisfaction, though some support providers receive higher scores than others. OPALS used mostly in school and very small academic libraries, earns superlative scores.
About 6 percent of academic libraries signal interest in migrating to a new system, mostly from those remaining on legacy ILS products, but also from those that have been using a library service platform for a decade that are reviewing options. Academic libraries showed increasing interest in migrating from 2007 through 2014, with steadily declining interest since. The launch of Alma and WorldShare Management Services in 2011 sparked great interest, which peaked in 2015. After that year the percent of academic libraries considering migrating diminished as large portions of these libraries had moved to a library services platform and were well occupied in implementing and optimizing those new installations.
The satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, consistent with those given by large and complex libraries. Only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as a migration candidate, though even more mentioned FOLIO this year. Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma.
Implementations of the FOLIO are underway and interest in new implementations continues to increase with 102 libraries mentioning it among their migration candidates. Narrative comments suggested that many libraries avoid open source products due to a perception that they would need more staff with technical skills.
The portion of public libraries considering system replacement has declined steadily since the first year of the survey. The high interest among public libraries in migration during the early years of the survey was driven by the industry turmoil. Since about 2015, public library interest in migrations has steadily declined, possibly due to the lack of compelling alternatives. This year only 4 percent of public libraries expressed interest in changing systems. The proprietary and open source ILS products used by public libraries are mature and increasingly less differentiated.
Academic libraries showed increasing interest in migrating from 2007 through 2014, with steadily declining interest since. The launch of Alma and WorldShare Management Services in 2011 sparked great interest, which peaked in 2015. Academic libraries considering migrating diminished since most have moved to library services platforms. About 6 percent of academic libraries continue to show interest in migrating, mostly from those remaining on legacy ILS products and those that have been using a library service platform for a decade that are reviewing options. Both public and academic libraries stated less interest in changing systems in 2021, due to the disruptions of the pandemic.

No library management product can be expected to work well for all libraries. Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinctive characteristics relative to the types of material in their collections and in the services they provide. The type, size, and overall complexity are important factors when considering the technology products and services best suited for any given library. Accordingly, this survey segments responses into categories determined by library type and collection size to assess each product within relevant peer groups. Each annual survey provides a snapshot of the perceived capabilities of each product, and uses results from previous years to identify trends regarding the satisfaction and performance of the products their vendors.

The satisfaction ratings and narrative comments gauge library reactions surrounding the broader events in the industry, such as consolidation, open source initiatives, and the decline of legacy products. Earlier years of the survey, for example, reflected the negative impact the private equity acquisitions on SirsiDynix and Innovative. More recently survey responses inferred that libraries reacted mostly positively to ProQuest acquiring Ex Libris and Innovative from their previous private equity owners. This year's survey results give early indications on whether library satisfaction of the products of Ex Libris and Innovative are different under the ownership of Clarivate.

Survey responses give a glimpse into ongoing migration trends. Academic libraries are shifting away from integrated library systems to library services platforms, with Ex Libris Alma leading the pack, followed by OCLC WorldShare Management Services. FOLIO has fully entered the competition, with survey results showing strong interest, though there are still too few implementations to gauge satisfaction. Public libraries show substantially different patterns, with lower levels of interest in migrating to new systems.

Several themes pervade all editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Presenting results without regard to size categories would give misleading impressions. Products designed for small libraries would not be successful among larger and more complex institutions, despite superlative ratings by the small libraries that use them.

In the current environment, the capabilities of the product and the quality of services from the vendor matter more than license models. Conventional integrated library systems prevail in public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also gave excellent marks to proprietary ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal notable patterns regarding library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are not rated as highly for managing print resources than legacy ILS products.

I appreciate all the individuals that took time to respond to the survey this year given the many other issues competing for their attention. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to consider when considering options on whether to retain or replace their strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a large aggregation of evaluative data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.


Table of Contents


  • Koha
  • Evergreen
  • FOLIO
  • Academic Discovery Services
  • Selected Statistical Tables
  • Survey details

  • Introduction

    top

    Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

    The 2023 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 2849 libraries from 72 countries describing experiences with 132 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey is titled according to the year in which the report is published rather than when the survey period started. The survey results include narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations.

    View the narrative comments given by responders
    It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

    Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
    Among large academic libraries Alma was given highest scores for general satisfaction, overall ILS functionality, electronic resource management, and company loyalty. Sierra earned top scores for print resource management and customer support.
    Apollo from Biblionix received top scores in all categories for very small public libraries. Among small libraries Apollo led in general satisfaction, effectiveness for electronic resources, customer support, and company loyalty.
    Polaris received top ratings by large public libraries for general satisfaction, print resource management, electronic resource management, company loyalty.
    Large public libraries rated SirsiDynix Symphony highest for overall ILS functionality and for customer support.
    Mid-sized public libraries gave Koha with support from ByWater Solutions highest ratings for overall satisfaction, effictiveness for print resources, customer support, and company loyalty. Very small public libraries gave ByWater Solutions second highest scores in all categories.
    OPALS earned top ratings in all categories for K-12 school libraries; highest in most categories for small academic libraries.

    Previous editions: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

    Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

    Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

    Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

    The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

    Confidentiality and Anonymity

    top

    The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

    Caveats

    top

    Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

    Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

    Constructive criticism

    top

    The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

    Survey Response Demographics

    top

    Collection Size Categories
    countmoreless
    198010,000
    79210,00150,000
    36350,001100,000
    413100,001250,000
    259250,001500,000
    213500,0011,000,000
    2981,000,00110,000,000
    3110,000,001
    183No collection size data
    2750Total of Categories

    This year, the survey attracted 2,750 responses from libraries in 72 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,068 responses), followed by Canada (175), Australia (104), United Kingdom (79), Spain (43), New Zealand (26), and Ireland (13). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

    While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (43), Argentina (3), Chile (3), Colombia (5), Mexico (7), and El Salvador (1). A total of 682 of the 2,750 total responses (24.8 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

    The survey received 2,750 responses: ( 2021=2,849; 2020=2,849; 2020=2,902; 2019=3,234; 2018=3,552; 2017=3,992; 2016=4,042; 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 45,763 responses. The survey was open between October 5, 2022 and March 8, 2023.

    There were 183 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

    Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,096 responses, followed by academic libraries with 917. This year 244 responses came from school libraries.

    The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

    General Information about the Survey

    top

    Productcountreport
    Alma436ils report
    Symphony319ils report
    OPALS297ils report
    Sierra274ils report
    Polaris171ils report
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions137ils report
    VERSO137ils report
    WorldShare Management Services134ils report
    Destiny98ils report
    Apollo91ils report
    Library.Solution75ils report
    Atriuum75ils report
    Horizon52ils report
    Evergreen -- Equinox41ils report
    Koha29ils report
    Evergreen -- Independent26ils report
    Koha -- Independent24ils report
    Carl.X24ils report
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services22ils report
    ALEPH 50022ils report
    Voyager20ils report
    Spydus18ils report
    AbsysNet12ils report
    OCLC Wise12ils report
    Bibliovation11ils report
    Evergreen -- MOBIUS10ils report

    The survey attracted responses from libraries using 98 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

    This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author. The execution of the survey and compiling its results represent hundreds of hours of effort. If you find this report helpful, please consider making a donation to Library Technology Guides.

    This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


    Survey Results

    top

    Migration Patterns and Trends

    The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

    Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS
    Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
    ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6% 66.9% 75.0% 78.3% 65.0% 81.5% 77.3%
    Alma -- -- -- -- -- 25.0% 16.7% 4.3% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2% 3.2% 3.7% 3.4% 4.3% 3.7%
    Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 2.9% 1.1% 2.7% 2.2%
    Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6% 31.6% 35.0% 25.0% 34.1% 17.3% 19.2%
    Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4% 25.2% 22.5% 16.4% 10.3% 18.9% 13.3%
    Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0% 71.3% 74.2% 82.1% 87.5% 77.8% 100.0%
    Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 7.9% 8.1% 8.4% 7.3% 6.5% 5.3%
    Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.1% 6.4% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 19.2% 21.4% 33.1% 31.4% 34.8% 46.0%
    Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6% 19.8% 18.7% 16.7% 17.5% 15.5% 20.7%
    Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7% 69.7% 83.1% 82.4% 75.0% 70.8% 70.0%
    WorldShare Management Services -- -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 4.1% 3.2% 6.0% 7.0% 9.2% 5.1% 10.5% 9.7% 11.2%

    General Migration Trends

    The churn of planned system migrations has been on a slowing trend for the last three years. Between 2020 and 2022, the total percentage of libraries indicating they are considering changing to a new system has been around 13%, compared to 16% between 2016 and 2019. Intentions to migrate saw their peak in the earlier years of the survey, with 27 percent of libraries considering changing systems in 2008. (percent of all responses: 2022: 13.7%; 2021: 12.3%; 2020: 13.9%; 2019: 16.5%; 2018: 15.5%; 2017: 16.6%; 2016: 16.7%; 2015: 18.4%; 2014: 20.7%; 2013: 16.2%; 2012: 20.9%; 2011: 23.5%; 2010: 20.1%; 2009: 18.6%; 2008: 26.9%; 2007: 23.5%).

    Some runway is left for new procurements with almost all of libraries still using Aleph, Voyager, Millennium signaling plans to change systems. The number of libraries remaining on these products is limited, as reflected in the rapidly diminishing responses to the survey.

    Migration intentions: Public and Academic Libraries

    The percentage of libraries looking for new systems over the span of all survey years reveals some interesting patterns. The portion of public libraries considering system replacement has declined steadily since the first year of the survey. The high interest among public libraries in migration during the early years of the survey was driven by the industry turmoil associated with the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners and its unpopular strategy of moving all its customers to Symphony (previously Unicorn) meaning that libraries using Dynix, Horizon, and Corinthian would be forced to change. This turmoil spread more generally with a sense of distrust for vendors of proprietary systems, sparking interest in open source alternatives. Since about 2015, public library interest in migrations has steadily declined, possibly due to the lack of compelling alternatives. This year only 4 percent of public libraries expressed interest in changing systems. The proprietary and open source ILS products used by public libraries have all reached mature levels of functionality and may not offer enough differentiation to make it worthwhile to endure the cost and disruption associated with procurement, migration, and training.

    Academic libraries showed increasing interest in migrating from 2007 through 2014, with steadily declining interest since. The launch of Alma and WorldShare Management Services in 2011 sparked great interest, which peaked in 2015. After that year the percent of academic libraries considering migrating diminished as large portions of these libraries had moved to a library services platform and were well occupied in implementing and optimizing those new installations. About 6 percent of academic libraries continue to show interest in migrating, mostly from those remaining on legacy ILS products and those that have been using a library service platform for a decade that are reviewing options.

    Both public and academic libraries stated less interest in changing systems in 2021. This patterns can be seen as due to the pandemic, where libraries were dealing with other more serious issues, deferring consideration of system changes. Migration intentions resumed the previous patterns in the 2022 survey results.

    Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS
    YearTotal ResponsesAcademicPercentPublicPercent
    202227501686.1%1053.8%
    202127531174.2%782.8%
    202028501866.5%1184.1%
    201932342828.7%1314.1%
    201835522958.3%1654.6%
    201739933619.0%1844.6%
    201640423759.3%1794.4%
    201534593229.3%1905.5%
    2014314333110.5%2056.5%
    201330031806.0%1525.1%
    201230322819.3%2397.9%
    201124322319.5%24210.0%
    201021731316.0%24211.1%
    200920991135.4%22710.8%
    200814531057.2%21414.7%
    20071795864.8%27815.5%

    Legacy Products

    Three products, now all associated with Clarivate, show signs that they have entered a final phase of thier product cycle, with over 70 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Aleph: 77.3; Voyager: 70.0; Millennium: 100%). These products have not been offered to new customers for many years and increasing porportions of those using them are ready to move on to new systems. Millennium received responses from only 5 libraries, all of which indicated plans to migrate. We can anticipate that the numbers of libraries using these products to decline in the next few years. The number of responses from libraries using Aleph and Voyager have steadily diminished, down to about 20 each. We cannot expect complete extinction of any of Voyager or Aleph for quite some time since some libraries continue to appreciate their advanced capabilities for managing print resources. Response trends point to the demise of Millennium in the short term. Historically, ILS products have shown very long product cycles, remaining in use by some libraries many years beyond the time that they receive development. Their vendors tend to provide minimal security releases indefinitely, but also offer incentives entice libraries to move to their new offerings.

    The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:

    • Aleph: 22 libraries responded; 73 percent indicated interest in migration; most (14) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 5 mentioned FOLIO; and 1 WMS. Loyalty score: 7.00. Interpretation: stronger likelihood that libraries using Aleph will move to Alma.
    • Voyager: 20 libraries responded; 70 percent indicated interest in migration; 6 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 11 mentioned FOLIO; 2 mentioned WMS. Loyalty Score: 5.7. Interpretation: stronger likelihood that libraries using Voyager will move to FOLIO.
    • Millennium: 5 libraries responded; 100 percent indicated interest in migration; 2 indicated Alma as a replacement candidate; 2 mentioned WMS; 1 mentioned FOLIO; 1 mentioned Koha, 0 mentioned Sierra. Responses were too few to calculate loyalty score. Interpretation: Those libraries still using Millennium will most likely move to products from other providers. If they intended to upgrade to Sierra, they would have already done so.

    Supported products with higher migration interest

    Another group of products continue to be supported by thier vendors, but with survey responses indicating a moderate number of libraries consideration of moving to new systems. The drivers behind these migration considerations vary among the respective products. Horizon from SirsiDynix has generally seen a trend since 2010 of a diminishing percentage of responses indicating interest in migrating, though the number of responses has fallen. This year 19.2 percent (10 out of 52) indicated interest in changing to a new system, none of which listed Symphony among thier replacement considerations. SirsiDynix asserts that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future and libraries using it show only moderate interest in changing, compared to high interest by those using legacy products.

    A growing portion of libraries using Sierra flag interest in migrating to new systems, including 126 out of 274 (46%) responses received this year (2012: 3.1%; 2013: 6.4%; 2014: 10.8%; 2015: 12.9%; 2016: 13.4%; 2017: 19.2%; 2018: 21.4%; 2019: 33.1%; 2020: 31.4%; 2021: 34.8%). For libraries using Sierra, the systems identified for migration candidates included FOLIO (48), Alma (36), Koha (22), and WorldShare (14).

    Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strengths in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries. Interest in FOLIO shown through migration intentions continues to build, though with with only a handful of libraries usingg it in production, it does not appear in the satisfaction rating tables.

    Low migration interest

    Products with only negligible interest include Alma (3.4%) and Apollo (1.1%)

    Two other products received migration intentions at a moderately low level. 13.3 percent (10 out of 75) of responses from those using Library.Solution from The Library Corporation flagged interest in migrating to a new system. 11.2 percent (15 out of 143) of those using WorldShare Management Services indicated interest in migrating.

    In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (92), FOLIO (86), Koha (50), Symphony (31). WorldShare Management Services (34) Polaris (20), and Sierra (10). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 150 mentioned Koha, 141 mentioned FOLIO, 31 mentioned Evergreen, and 3 mentioned TIND.

    FOLIO has entered its implementation following a period of design and development. A handful of implementations have moved into production. This year 14 libraries using FOLIO responded to the survey, spanning 3 service providers: EBSCO Information Services (8), Index data (2), and SCANBIT Technology. Without broader implementation, this survey cannot yet address its performance, but can measure interest. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate. (In 2021 86 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; 2020: 882019: 104; 2018: 65; 2017: 59; 2016: 41). 8 libraries using Alma noted interest in FOLIO; seven of these libraries indicated they were considering changing systems.

    The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

    2022 Migration Intentions
    Current ILSRespShoppingPercentAcademic AlmaWorldSharePolarisSierraSymphonyFOLIOKohaEvergreenTIND
    ALEPH 500 22 17 77.3 9 1410005000
    Horizon 52 10 19.2 3 332002001
    Library.Solution 75 10 13.3 4 110011020
    Millennium 5 5 100.0 1 220001100
    Sierra 274 126 46.0 74 3614517482240
    Polaris 171 9 5.3 0 010011240
    Symphony 319 66 20.7 22 103933111031
    Voyager 20 14 70.0 8 6200011100
    2022: Any Product 2,75037613.7 87352151610249203
    2021: Any Product 2,75333812.3 9234211031865094
    2020: Any Product 2,85039613.9 10440188218854125
    2019: Any Product 3,23452216.2 1757618413910469199

    Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

    Industry Consolidation

    top

    Survey results help document the impact of the changes in the business landscape. Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners, survey results for Symphony and Horizon dropped and eventually recovered once harsh product strategies were withdrawn; further improvement was seen when SirsiDynix was acquired by ICV. Innovative saw diminished satisfaction ratings when it was sold to private equity and improved when Innovative became part of ProQuest. Aleph and Voyager generally saw satisfaction improvement following Ex Libris acquisition by ProQuest, though Alma’s ratings seem unaffected.

    The acquisition of ProQuest by Clarivate completed in December 2021 has not yet had time to impact product satisfaction ratings. This year’s survey did capture a number of comments that address industry consolidation.

    ...Ex Libris is the best library system vendor I've worked with in a long career, but there are concerns about the Clarivate acquisitions and potential impact on content neutrality in future.

    Ex Libris was purchased by Clarivate, and is going through transition pains. One example is that they could not provide us with a sufficiently well trained person to help us with Alma workflow analysis after we contracted with them for the service, even after many months. They introduced a new Metadata Editor in the last couple of years, and it continues to be functionally problematic. The hosted system frequently suffers from fairly significant lag times. The support team has been very slow to respond in the last year. I filed a ticket for quite an impactful issue in June 2022 that still has had no response to it, aside from an initial receipt response, even after I upgraded it to Urgent last month.

    We completed our migration from Millennium to Alma five years ago. Due to staffing and budget cuts we have not fully realized the promise of the new system's APIs or reporting. Automated jobs (including integration with acquisitions vendors to load brief records), integration with authentication and patron management, and integration with knowledge base/discovery are the biggest gains for our library. Alma's workflows are designed for larger libraries; our staff of <20 individuals quickly found the system of multiple desks and branches to be too complicated and we have streamlined a lot of things. We also have concerns about Clarivate's acquisition of Alma's parent company, contributing to an oligopoly situation where Clarivate/Proquest, OCLC and Ebsco (via FOLIO) have divided the academic library ILS market among themselves.

    I've noticed a significant decrease in customer service around the software that Ex Libris provides since it was acquired by Proquest, and then again when acquired by Clarivate. As I indicated in my survey with them, our sales rep is non-existent. Clarivate focuses more on the content side of sales than it does on the software side of things. It honestly makes me question whether or not Clarivate is equipped to manage the development and support of a major technology system.

    In general, the relative consolidation of the LSP market is limiting choice and pushing prices up across their product range. Currently they have a good offering, however, support and its openness as it gets consolidated between the merged companies that are now under the Clarivate umbrella have declined.

    We are unhappy with the quality of Ex Libris' content management services (knowledge base AKA community zone) as well as CDI. We are also unhappy with the length of time to resolve support cases. Our perception is the Ex Libris has expanded too much and focused on new products at the expense of its base products. The buyouts by ProQuest then Clarivate contribute to increasing monopolies in library technology services and scholarly publishing. Yet, with all this, there's the knowledge that because there's still a lack of diverse library service platform providers (only EBSCO and OCLC) with their unknown issues, migration is likely not worth the hassle - especially at a consortium level.

    Polaris a very stable ILS that is very full featured. We've been very happy with Innovative's support of the product with the exception of one incident. Our ILS is hosted, and after Innovative was acquired by Clarivate, we were moved to a server environment whose performance progressively failed. Innovative support eventually made it right, but it was stressful going for library staff for a while. I hope there will not be future unforced errors induced by Clarivate.

    Since the Clarivate takeover customer service has been considerably worse.

    We are currently negotiating a contract to migrate to Alma. Clarivate approached us. They said they are interested in moving academic libraries who are currently with Sierra over to Alma. When we first looked at Alma 8 years ago, it was cost prohibitive, but it is within the realm of possibility now. Sierra's ERM is dismal. We are looking forward to a cloud-based system that is highly integrative. Sierra was good, but we think Alma will be better.

    III improved quite a bit after being absorbed by ProQuest. With Clarivate, things continue to be pretty smooth, but I think they've made some cuts in their support area. Tickets not answered as quickly as previously (but still pretty quick and much better than pre-ProQuest) and some long-time support staff were let go. Hoping to see why Clarivate & III make sense.

    There are concerns within the library on how Innovative Interfaces/Clarivate will position Sierra as we heard from Clarivate representatives that Sierra will be positioned for public libraries.

    Innovative was great, but we have not observed enough of the Clarivate takeover to know if it will continue to thrive.

    International Perspective

    top

    The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

    International Responses
    product Total responsesUnited StatesInternational
    All Products 2,7502,068680
    Alma 436261175
    Symphony 208231111
    Sierra 27423143
    Polaris 15917311
    VERSO 1371361
    WorldShare Management Services 13410727
    Apollo 91901
    Library.Solution75732

    top

    Clarivate company profile

    Clarivate

    Due to industry consolidation, multiple products now fall within the domain of Clarivate, though the Ex Libris and Innovative brands persist. Under Innovative Interfaces, current products include Polaris and Sierra, as well as Millennium and Virtua as legacy products. Ex Libris Alma, a library services platform for academic and research libraries, was well represented in survey responses (429). Aleph and Voyager continue to be used, though the number of responses continue to decline as libraries using these products migrate to other products. Discovery products offered by Ex Libris include Primo, Primo VE, and Summon, all of which rely on the Ex Libris Central Discovery Index.

    A total of 914 libraries using a product from Clarivate responded to the survey.

    top

    Innovative company profile

    Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

    Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua and is active in almost all global regions. The company was acquired by ProQuest in the beginning of 2020. In December 2021 ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate.

    This year's survey provides the opportunity to note any changes that may be due to new ownership and management. In the last two years, both Sierra and Polaris saw increases in satisfaction across all categories, with the the strongest improvement seen in support. This upward trend in satisfaction indicates that the libraries using Innovative's products have not had an adverse impact from the business transition and that the Innovative may be better positioned for development and support under ProQuest. The impact of the Clarivate acquisition will not become apparent until the next year's survey results.

    Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 267 from libraries using Sierra, 163 using Polaris, 5 using Millennium, and 6 using Virtua, or 441 in total.

    Innovative has seen changes in its ownership over the course of this survey. These business transitions have had at least some impact on the levels of satisfaction for the products involved. The first business transition took place in March 2012 when its founder sold the company to a pair of private equity firms. The impact the change of ownership is reflected in a steady downward trend in satisfaction scores from 2013 through 2015. Innovative acquired Polaris in March 2014. A downward trend in satisfaction corresponded with the transition of Polaris as a standalone company to ownership by Innovative. VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014. The satisfaction ratings for Virtua have been erratic throught all years of the survey, making it difficult to interpret the drivers for change in any given year. Innovative was acquired by ProQuest in January 2020. Under ProQuest, there has been a pattern of improving satisfaction across Innovative's products. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in December 2021.

    Sierra

    top

    Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 267 libraries, including 97 publics, 118 academic libraries, 17 consortia and 4 special libraries. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.61), mid-sized academic (4.78) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company.

    When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 2012 (7.96) through 2019 (5.16). Support scores improved noticably for 2019-2020, indicating a positive impact of the transition to ownership by ProQuest. This year's support score decreased slightly to 6.02. General satisfaction likewise increased in 2019-2020 (5.92 > 6.22), with this year's scores mostly level (6.14). Innovative generally saw a steep decline in performance ratings during its period of private equity ownership (2012-2019). Its ownership by ProQuest has prompted more positive satisfaction ratings, with the recent integration into Clarivate showing slight decreases. Loyalty scores were slightly higher this year.

    The portion of libraries using Sierra signaling plans to change to another product has steadily increased since its launch in 2011. In 2012, 3.1 percent indicated interest in changing, climbing to 46% this year. Of all the currently supported and developed products, Sierra showed the highest number of migration intentions.

    Sierra continues to see more libraries planning to move to a new system with 126 out of 247 responses (46%) indicating interest in migration. The product is not seeing significant sales to new name customers. Within the Clarivate product suite, Alma ranks as its strategic product for academic and research libraries with Polaris marketed to public libraries. For existing Sierra implementations, the product will be supported and enhanced indefinitely.

    Perspective: The overall use of Sierra continues to drift toward public libraries and its overall implementations will diminish over the next few years. Within the Clarivate product family, Ex Libris Alma is positioned as the strategic product for academic and research libraries and Polaris as the strategic product for public libraries. Libraries rate Sierra's capabilities for print resource management (7.67) much more highly than its functionality for electronic resource management (4.67). Large public libraries give Sierra much higher overall satisfaction ratings (6.92) than do large academics (5.10). These trends suggest that Sierra, though a fully supported product, will eventually see a decline in implementations. 46% of responses indicated plans to migrate, with FOLIO and Alma mentioned most as replacement candidates. Given the very long product cycles for ILS products and its ongoing use by many high-profile libraries and consortia, we can expect that Innovative will continue to support and perform some development on Sierra for many more years. The improved response scores for all response categories for the 2020-20021 suggest that the product is receiving more attention under the umbrella of ProQuest than it did under private equity ownership, but that the slight decline in scores this year show less optimism regarding its position under Clarivate.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Sierra Responses by Sector
    SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2676.14 395.72495.47266.08496.71316.94136.311165.81
    ILSFunctionality2666.30 396.13495.88265.62496.76316.65136.461166.25
    PrintFunctionality2667.27 396.97497.31267.15487.15317.71137.081167.25
    ElectronicFunctionality2664.73 394.77494.24264.77495.08315.32134.381153.93
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2626.02 375.89475.62265.69485.98316.74136.381166.38
    CompanyLoyalty2655.61 395.28494.78255.40495.73317.32136.771165.63

    Millennium

    top

    A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type).

    The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. Only 5 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2021=9; 2020=16; 2019=39; 2018=66; 2017=94; 2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. All 5 libraries responding to the survey this year indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 66.6% this year. Migration options mentioned included Alma (2), WorldShare Management Services (2), Koha (1), and FOLIO (1). None of the responses listed Innovative's own Sierra ILS as a replacement candidate.

    Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores since. This year support scores improved, though company loyalty declined. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47, 2018: 5.23, 2019: 5.32; 2020: 4.69).

    Perspective: All libraries still using Millennium have plans to change, whether stated so explicitely in this survey or not. Since Innovative introduced Sierra as the successor to Millennium over a decade ago, it is not surprising that its use is diminishing rapidly. Libraries using Millennium that planned to stay with Innovative and upgrade to Sierra would have likely done so long ago. Millennium is approaching the end of its product cycle and we can expect the number of remaining installations to drop rapidly. Libraries using Millennium are clearly ready to move to other alternatives.

    Polaris

    top

    Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 176 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.55), print resource management (8.00), electronic resource management (6.77), and company loyalty (7.55). Polaris was rated second for overall ILS functionality (7.18), where Symphony was rated slightly better (7.25). The overall level of scores in the category of electronic resource management was lower than others.

    From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings for support. From 2012 through 2019, ratings for Polaris declined in all categories. In 2019 and 2020, satisfaction scores improved in all categories, with company loyalty showing the most improvement. This year scores dropped in all categories, with customer loyalty showing the sharpest decline.

    Perspective: Throughout its business history, Innovative products have been implemented by all types of libraries, including academic and public as well as legal and medical libraries. Formidable competition from Ex Libris limited Sierra's success among academic libraries. Although implementations, support, and development will continue, we can anticipate a diminishing role for Sierra. Now that both Innovative and Ex Libris are part of ProQuest, Ex Libris will continue to expand its reach into academic and research libraries and Innovative seems positioned to focus more on public libraries, with Polaris as its flagship resource management product and Vega as its strategic discovery and patron engagement platform. These priorities seem to continue to apply now that ProQuest is part of Clarivate. Survey results show Polaris as well positioned as the strategic ILS within Clarivate. Polaris was rated quite highly by large and mid-sized public libraries, those with the larges economic impact. Survey results improved for Polaris when it became part of ProQuest, but declined a bit this year following the acquisition of ProQuest by Clarivate.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Polaris Responses by Sector
    PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1637.40 67.8310867.60377.30117.36197.00
    ILSFunctionality1627.53 67.8310857.76377.51116.73197.44
    PrintFunctionality1627.87 68.0010857.93377.92117.73198.22
    ElectronicFunctionality1616.04 65.0010846.24375.95116.45195.44
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1577.06 67.6710827.21376.92117.09096.22
    CompanyLoyalty1616.88 67.8310856.96377.11117.45195.78

    Virtua

    top

    Virtua continues to be supported by Innovative, but is no longer sold. Its number of installations is falling rapidly. This year 6 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. Only one of these libraries specifically stated interest in migrating to a new system (17%). The number of responses was too low for confident interpretation of results. The ratings this year were mixed, with dramatically improved company loyalty, a slight improvement in support, and diminished ratings for general satisfaction.

    Perspective: Since VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014, its products have not been marketed or further developed, though support continues. Many of the libraries that implemented Virtua did so for specialized functionality that may not be readily available in other products. Now considered a legacy product, we can expect the number of installations of Virtua to continue to decline rapidly, though some libraries may continue using it for a few more years.


    Ex Libris company profile

    Ex Libris

    top

    Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform. The company continues to support its legacy Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems, though the number installations continues to diminish. This year 429 libraries using Alma, 22 using Aleph, and 22 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 473 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in January 2022.

    The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. Ex Libris offers a variety of products not addressed by the survey, including its Leganto course list management application, Esploro for support of academic research programs, Rapido for the management of interlibrary loan transactions, and campusM as a mobile and web content management platform for academic institutions. The academic discovery section of this report covers Ex Libris Primo and Summon.

    Alma

    top

    Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (6.87), overall ILS functionality (6.87), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.81), and company loyalty (6.54). Sierra was the only other system with enough responses to appear in this category and received higher scores for print resource management and customer support. Mid-sized academic libraries generally gave Alma higher scores than large academic libraries. Small academics gave somewhat less favorable scores in most categories. This year libraries using Alma gave slightly more favorable scores for general satisfaction and company loyalty, with scores for support slightly lower. 3.7 percent of libraries responding indicated interest in changing systems.

    Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest for effectiveness in managing electronic resources (7.10). SirsiDynix Symphony was rated more highly than Alma in multiple categories among these mid-sized academic libraries, though with a much smaller number of responses (17) compared to those for Alma (120).

    Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.57).

    Perspective: As the dominant resource management product used by academic Libraries, much is at stake with Alma’s capabilities. The rise of Alma among academic libraries has been reflected in this survey since its launch in 2012. The number of responses has increased across each edition of the survey (2012=8; 2013=18; 2014=46; 2015=88; 2016=161; 2017=260; 2018=317; 2019=383; 220=322; 2021=376; 2022: 429). Alma has been implemented by large academic libraries and is a complex product that addresses a wider range of functionality than integrated library systems. Although the satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as a migration candidate more than any other option, though interest in FOLIO is rising rapidly. Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma.

    Alma is a sophisticated product used mostly in larger libraries with complex requirements. Smaller academic libraries, in contrast, often complain that Alma may be too complex.

    Survey results for Alma saw little change following the acquisition of Ex Libris by ProQuest in 2015. A small increase in satisfaction can be seen in this first year that Ex Libris has become part of Clarivate.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Alma Responses by Sector
    AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS4297.02 1127.051187.16996.871000116.91
    ILSFunctionality4297.16 1127.371187.25996.881000117.18
    PrintFunctionality4267.40 1107.541187.45997.141000117.91
    ElectronicFunctionality4277.00 1107.051187.11996.811000116.73
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport4266.02 1106.211186.13995.691000116.27
    CompanyLoyalty4226.87 1106.781157.15996.541000117.45

    Voyager

    top

    Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials.

    Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (7.00) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (4.25).

    This year saw a sharp drop insatisfaction scores for product support, company satisfaction, and company loyalty; there was a slight improvement in general satisfaction. Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (13 out of 20 or 65%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned FOLIO among the candidate replacements (11); 6 mentioned Alma. Others mentioned included WorldShare Management Services (2), and Koha (2).

    Perspective: During the early years of this survey, Voyager was one of the leading products for academic libraries. The acquisition of Voyager by Ex Libris in 2007 was followed by sharply improved satisfaction scores for the next few years. With the introduction of Alma and WorldShare Management Services as library services platforms better suited for the needs of academic libraries, the number of installations of Voyager diminished. Between 2013 and 2021 there was a steady improvement in satisfaction for Voyager, especially for support,though this year support scores fell (2021=7.39; 2022=6.7) The declining number of installations, survey responses, and the high percentage of libraries stating interest in migrating all point toward Voyager approaching the end of its product cycle. Support for Voyager seems assured for as long as it continues to be used by high-profile libraries.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Voyager Responses by Sector
    VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS205.35 34500000
    ILSFunctionality205.30 34500000
    PrintFunctionality207.00 34500000
    ElectronicFunctionality204.25 34500000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport206.70 34500000
    CompanyLoyalty205.70 34500000

    Aleph

    top

    Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

    The number of responses from libraries using Aleph were low (20), consistent with its reduced implementations. Once one of the most widely implemented ILS products in academic libraries, many have now migrated to other products. Ratings this year are difficult to characterize. Company loyalty scores increased significantly compared to last year (2021=6.62; 2022=7.0). General satisfaction scored plummeted (2021=6.26; 2022=5.09).

    Most (16 out of 22 or 72.3%) libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (14), WorldShare Management Services (1), and FOLIO (5). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma, though many are also considering FOLIO.

    Perspective: Aleph has been a mainstay for academic and national libraries as well as for large consortia in many global regions for more than three decades. But its architecture has become outdated and functional capabilities no longer align well with most libraries. This year, responders gave its print capabilities their highest ratings (7.432 and the lowest to its management of electronic resources (3.23). Like Voyager, support for Aleph is expected to continue for several years to give libraries pleny of time to move on to other systems. Once Aleph and Voyager fully wind down, Ex Libris will be able to fully focus all its support resources on Alma and its other new-generation products. Aleph is still used by many large libraries and consortia, so its eventual extinction still lies several years in the future.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 ALEPH 500 Responses by Sector
    ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS225.09 43300000
    ILSFunctionality225.23 43300000
    PrintFunctionality227.32 43300000
    ElectronicFunctionality223.23 43300000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport216.71 42300000
    CompanyLoyalty227.00 43300000

    OCLC company profile

    OCLC

    top

    OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. The organization also offers WorldCat Discovery Service, one of the products covered in the academic discovery services section below. OCLC offers many other products and services not within the scope of the survey or this report.

    WorldShare Management Services

    top

    A total of 133 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) most responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 5 special libraries, 2 public libraries, and 1 consortium.

    WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS fell into the middle tier of response ratings. It was rated higher than Ex Libris Alma in one category: satisfaction for customer support (Alma=6.13; WMS=7.09). Ratings for WMS were improved in all categories relative tolat year's survey results.

    Perspective: OCLC WorldShare Management System falls into the library services platform category of products. These products share characteristics such as globally distributed multi-tenant platforms with a single underlying codebase and provide advanced functionality for managing both electronic and print resources. WorldShare Management Services was launched in 2011. Survey results for both WMS and Alma fall into the same general range of moderate scores (6.14 – 7.8), WMS received its highest scores in the category for print functionality; Alma ranks somewhat higher than WMS in the other categories and for each size group of academic libraries. Despite many similarities, Alma has gained a larger market share than WMS. The library services platform category includes limited options: OCLC WorldShare Management Services, Ex Libris Alma, and FOLIO. Until recently WorldShare Management services was positioned as the key competitor to Alma. Now that FOLIO has entered its production phase, more academic libraries are expressing interest in it as they mention migration candidates in their survey responses. For libraries considering new systems, WMS was listed as a candidate less often (35) than Alma (87) or FOLIO (102).

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector
    WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1337.02 527.15336.79520011
    ILSFunctionality1337.01 527.23336.97520011
    PrintFunctionality1307.43 497.69337.36520011
    ElectronicFunctionality1336.95 527.23337.06520011
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1337.03 527.08337.09520011
    CompanyLoyalty1316.88 527.29336.61510011

    OCLC Wise

    OCLC Wise, a product designed for public libraries, received 11 recponses this year, below the threshold for inclusion in the comparative statistical tables. The scores given were exceptionally low and the narrative comments were generally negative.

    2022 OCLC Wise Responses by Sector
    OCLC WiseallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS113.91 00053101
    ILSFunctionality113.55 00053101
    PrintFunctionality113.73 00053101
    ElectronicFunctionality112.82 00053101
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport105.30 00043101
    CompanyLoyalty113.18 00053101

    SirsiDynix company profile

    SirsiDynix

    top

    SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

    This year 303 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2021: 332; 2020: 321; 2019: 439; 2018: 473, 2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 51 libraries using Horizon and 8 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 362 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

    Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008 steadily improved through 2020. Satisfaction scores have gone down a bit for the last two years. Ratings for EOS.Web have seen declined from 2017 through 2019, but have substantially improved over the last three years.

    Symphony

    top

    SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

    Mid-sized academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (7.42), and for print functionality (7.67). Among large public libraries, Symphony received highest ratings for capabilities for overall ILS functionality (7.25), and satisfaction with customer support (7.57). In all the other categories, large public libraries gave SirsiDynix penultimate ratings. These ratings show Symphony as quite capable in its abilities to serve the top tier of public libraries.

    Symphony performed well in some categories for mid-sized academic libraries. Most of the responses for Symphony came from public libraries (190 out of 303); 56 were from academic libraries. Among mid-sized academic libraries, the 17 responses from libraries using Symphony rated it highest in the categories of overall ILS functionality (7.41), effictiveness for print resources (7.94), satisfaction for customer support (8.18), and company loyalty (7.41).

    20.7 percent of libraries (66 out of 3319 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 22 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included FOLIO (11), Alma (10), Koha (10), Polaris (5), WorldShare Management Services (3), and Evergreen (3). 3 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

    Ratings for SirsiDynix Symphony steadily improved from 2008 through 2020, with scores dropping somewhat in 2021 and 2022.

    Perspective: SirsiDynix sites received especially positive marks from public libraries for its management of electronic resources. For these libraries, electronic resources come mostly in the form of ebooks and audiobooks. The capabilities of eResource Central for these resources is well appreciated.

    Many of the narrative comments given by libraries using Symphony and Horizon criticized SirsiDynix for not have yet completed development of the BLUEcloud modules. Unfulfilled expectations with the development of BLUEcloud stand out as an issue that may have impeded even higher satisfaction scores for Symphony.

    The library is still in process of moving to SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud modules from the current desktop client functionality and interface. The current ILS lacks desired API connections to better manage eResources.

    My library has been on SirsiDynix products for decades. We developed deep relationships with employees and fellow customers during that time, and I am quite sorry to say that we are exploring other options now. Other vendors developed next-gen web clients with integrated discovery, eRM, accounting, and reporting, which are offered at a single price for the full suite of services. SirsiDynix is still nickel-and-diming their customers by charging us independent fees for each cobbled-together service, which runs on the backbone of a 30+ year-old client/server architecture. After 10+ years of waiting on BlueCloud Circ and Cat, we still don't have the basic functionality of circulation and cataloging in a web client. Enterprise is more of a catalog overlay than a discovery service, requiring us to outsource to a 3rd party for capable single-search functionality. The list goes on, but at the end of the day, I simply don't have the staffing to maintain such an over-complicated system, the patience to continue nursing along outdated technology, or the funds to put toward a system that charges so much more for the full suite of services than vendors who offer all-in-one products. It's hard to say that, after all of these years, we're not even considering SirsiDynix as an option for the future.

    ...BlueCloud CENTRAL lacks several of Horizon's features that are important to our library's day-to-day operations.

    We wish Blue Cloud Analytics was a lot more friendly to use. It requires a steep learning curve that involves in-depth training and a lot of leg-work to get support and make progress on to draw out statistics for your library system.

    Progress on Blue Cloud products like Circulation and Cataloguing is glacial (no, really, I honestly believe the glaciers are receding faster). Reporting for Horizon is terrible. Reports either take an extremely long time in Blue Cloud Analytics or in many cases, cannot be done.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Symphony Responses by Sector
    SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS3036.73 245.42177.4185.881136.63477.43146.501217.10
    ILSFunctionality3046.83 245.71177.4186.131136.72477.15147.001227.09
    PrintFunctionality3027.35 246.50177.9487.631137.10477.79147.571217.71
    ElectronicFunctionality3005.78 243.92176.6585.881125.99465.89145.791226.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport3037.39 247.13178.1887.381127.12477.72147.211228.05
    CompanyLoyalty2986.52 245.42177.4185.881106.46466.98146.001226.91

    Horizon

    top

    The number of responses from libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), has diminished over the span of the survey (2007: 274; 2022: 52), reflecting its decrease in installations. In 2008 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. This year responses from libraries using Horizon show a relatively low level of interest in changing systems (10 out of 52 or 19.2%), apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term.

    Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, (see selection/deselection report). Of those libraries indicating interest in moving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Alma (3), WorldShare Management Services (3), Polaris (2), and FOLIO (2). None of the libraries using Horizon that were considering changing systems mentioned Symphony as a replacement candidate.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Horizon Responses by Sector
    HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS516.51 311137.23206.35401
    ILSFunctionality516.57 311137.38206.45401
    PrintFunctionality507.10 211137.00207.05401
    ElectronicFunctionality515.94 311136.77205.70401
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport507.46 311127.50207.40401
    CompanyLoyalty486.96 311107.20207.15401

    EOS.Web

    top

    EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 8 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. Satisfaction scores in all categories were sharply down over those seen in 2017 to 2019, but improved the last three years.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 EOS.Web Responses by Sector
    EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS87.25 20000000
    ILSFunctionality87.63 20000000
    PrintFunctionality87.88 20000000
    ElectronicFunctionality86.00 20000000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport87.63 20000000
    CompanyLoyalty77.14 20000000

    The Library Corporation company profile

    The Library Corporation

    top

    The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 72 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 24 for libraries using Carl.X. The Library Corporation has been owned and operated by its founder since 1974.

    Library.Solution

    top

    Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), has been implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries and K-12 school districts.

    Libraries gave Library.Solution its highest scores in the categories of print functionality and for customer support. The lowest scores were given for company loyalty. Across all years of the survey, scores for Library.Solution have been fairly even. This year saw a significant drop in customer support ratings and a modest decline in overal ILS satisfaction. 9 out of the 75 respnoses (12%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

    Library.Solution has seen generally lowering ratings from 2012, with some peaks and valleys along the way. Company loyalty scores are lower than those for the other categories. While libraries using Library.Solution give TLC strong ratings as a company and for support, they do not necessarily affirm loyalty as they consider new products.

    Perspective: Throughout the editions of this survey, libraries have given Library.Solution moderately positive ratings, consistently within the range of 6.5 through 7.5. These scores are not always high enough to place in the top place above competing systems. Survey ratings give the company’s customer support excellent scores, as do many of the narrative comments.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Library.Solution Responses by Sector
    Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS726.89 85.8810467.225050
    ILSFunctionality727.00 86.2510467.245050
    PrintFunctionality727.40 87.2510467.545050
    ElectronicFunctionality685.56 74.7110435.775050
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport717.28 87.2510457.205050
    CompanyLoyalty726.53 86.2510466.595050

    Carl.X

    top

    Carl.X (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 25 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X improved from 2018 through 2020, but were lower for the last two years. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for print functionality (7.21) and lowest for support for electronic resources (5.50).

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Carl.X Responses by Sector
    Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS246.92 000106.805241
    ILSFunctionality246.75 000106.505241
    PrintFunctionality247.21 000106.905241
    ElectronicFunctionality225.50 00095.335141
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport247.00 000106.505241
    CompanyLoyalty247.00 000106.905241

    Biblionix company profile

    Biblionix

    top

    Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 88 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

    Apollo

    top

    Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among very small public libraries in several categories: general satisfaction (8.25), electronic resource management (7.86), customer support (8.58), and company loyalty (8.25). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.62), overall ILS functionality (8.52), print resource management (8.38), electronic resource management (8.49), and It was rated second for company loyalty (8.37). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Although small variations are seen from year to year, the satisfaction ratings given to Apollo fall consistently in the 8.0 to 8.8 range. The narrative comments for Apollo were consistently positive.

    Perspective: By focusing on the niche of small public libraries, Biblionix has been able to garner very high levels of satisfaction from the libraries using Apollo. These libraries may find systems developed for larger libraries overly complex and appreciate Apollo’s web-based streamlined functionality. Apollo did not appear in survey results for mid-sized or large public libraries.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Apollo Responses by Sector
    ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS888.41 000828.430000
    ILSFunctionality898.33 000838.330000
    PrintFunctionality888.43 000828.440000
    ElectronicFunctionality857.82 000797.800000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport868.48 000808.470000
    CompanyLoyalty898.33 000838.290000

    Book Systems company profile

    Book Systems, Inc.

    top

    Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

    Atriuum

    This year 73 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; All responses except for 1 were from public libraries.. Although Atriuum has been adopted in many K-12 schools, these libraries tend to be less likely to respond to the survey. The company earned its strongest ratings in overall ILS satisfaction (7.84) and customer support (7.80); Since 2011 its scores have placed consistently in the 7.5 to 8.3 range in all categories, reflecting extremely high levels of satisfaction. There has been minor variation from year to year, with a general trend toward higher scores through 2020, with somewhat lower scores for thelast two years.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Atriuum Responses by Sector
    AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS737.84 000657.801010
    ILSFunctionality737.82 000657.781010
    PrintFunctionality727.79 000647.721010
    ElectronicFunctionality716.44 000636.401010
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport717.80 000647.751010
    CompanyLoyalty737.66 000657.621010

    Civica company profile

    Civica

    top

    Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

    Spydus

    top

    This year 18 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and outside the United States. Of the 18 libraries responding, 2 (11.1%) indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat since 2016, but improved between 2020 and 2021. Satisfaction scores dropped this year. Libraries using Spydus gave Civica lower ratings for support than for other categories.

    The low number of responses reduces the confidence that these rankings are representative of the broader community of libraries using Spydus.

    Perspective: Although Spydus is one of the most used systems in Australia and other countries, it has only a handful of implementations in the United States and is underrepresented in this survey. Despite efforts to solicit responses from libraries in all international regions, results are skewed toward the United States and Canada, which means the survey results for products like Spydus may not be indicative of their broader customer base.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Spydus Responses by Sector
    SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS187.00 100107.104100
    ILSFunctionality187.00 100107.204100
    PrintFunctionality187.61 100107.804100
    ElectronicFunctionality185.67 100105.904100
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport185.83 100106.304100
    CompanyLoyalty176.88 10097.114100

    Follett company profile

    Follett School Solutions

    top

    Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with over 80 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a much smaller portion of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

    In September 2021, Follett School Solutions was divested from Follett Corporantion and acquired by Francisco Parnters.

    Destiny

    top

    Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 95 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 74 from schools, 12 from small public libraries, and 6 from small academic libraries. (full product report and narrative comments).

    In most categories, school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public or academic libraries. That is an expected outcome since Destiny has been designed for K-12 schools and its use in public libraries is more incidental, due mostly to its low cost per library. Some public libraries also share an ILS implementation with thier school district.

    The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.29 and 6.9 for public libraries. Destiny was given its highest ratings for management of print resources (7.62) and customer support (7.22). Responses for Destiny have been quite consistent through each edition of the survey from 2015 through 2021, but were lower this year.

    Perspective: The response rates from school libraries have been disproportionately low for the survey. School librarians face many challenges and have proven to be difficult to reach. In some years, Follett has helped promote the survey to its users, such as in 2016 when 621 responses were received for libraries using Destiny. The satisfaction scores for that year with a large number of responses were consistent with subsequent years with smaller response rates. This observation helps strengthen confidence that survey ratings are representative of the broader customer base even with a smaller sample.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Destiny Responses by Sector
    DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS967.20 67.0000106.9000737.291
    ILSFunctionality967.26 67.1700107.3000737.261
    PrintFunctionality957.62 67.500097.6700737.621
    ElectronicFunctionality945.84 65.8300104.9000715.991
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport947.22 67.330097.3300727.251
    CompanyLoyalty947.01 67.5000106.2000717.131

    OPALS logo

    OPALS

    top

    The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 297 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 182 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 10 from consortia, 11 from small public libraries, and 29 from small academic libraries.

    OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.89), ILS functionality (8.79), print functionality (8.92), electronic resource functionality (8.16), and company loyalty (8.82). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products. Looking at responses across all library groups, OPALS received somewhat weaker scores for its capabilities for managing electronic resources (7.97). 29 responses did not provide a response for this question, indicating that these libraries do not use OPALS for managing thier electronic resources.

    Perspective: Libraries using OPALS are enthusiastic responders to this survey, both in terms of the number of responses and in the stellar satisfaction scores given. Libraries using OPALS seem truly delighted with the product and with the support they receive. It is difficult to interpret results that give highest scores to every survey question without differentiation. The only question that OPALS responders treated differently was the one addressing capabilities for addressing electronic resources.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 OPALS Responses by Sector
    OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2978.87 178.6540109.00001828.89108.70
    ILSFunctionality2958.71 178.4140108.60001818.79108.60
    PrintFunctionality2968.89 178.7640109.00001818.92108.80
    ElectronicFunctionality2577.97 167.254087.88001658.16108.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2928.77 158.204098.67001818.84108.90
    CompanyLoyalty2908.71 178.4740108.80001778.8297.89

    Open Source Products

    Open Source products make up a routine aspect of the library technology industry. Although this report gathers them together into a separate section, open source products compete on their own merits among the proprietary offerings. The products covered include Koha, used by all types of libraries and in all global regions, Evergreen, used by consortia of public libraries in the United States and Canada, and FOLIO, a library services platform developed primarily for academic libraries that is now in its early implementation phase.

    Most implementations of open source library management products rely on commercial support arrangements. The satisfaction that a library might experience will be determined both by the capabilities of the software and by the service provider. The survey measures the satisfaction across all implementations of an open source product and for each service provider, for example: Koha – ByWater Solutions or FOLIO – EBSCO Information Services.

    Spanning responses across all open source products, many libraries offer comments of considerable satisfaction.

    Many narrative comments address the varying attitudes about implementing open source products:

    We are part of a consortium that shares an ILS. If we weren't, I would immediately start advocating for Koha or Evergreen. If our consortium decided to implement open source for our ILS I would get involved with that project and gladly implement it at our own institution. I feel pretty strongly that libraries need to move away from vendors and take control of their own technology. Open source is the best way to do that.

    Open source is desirable in the long run, lack of funds, staffing and migration are the impediments.

    While we migrated to Alma fairly recently and it is a mature ILS, budget pressure from the state may force us to move to what appears to be a less-developed open source system in two years' time.

    While we support open source we do not have the developers to support these systems

    I'm very pleased at this time with the value the Apollo provides. If that ever changed, I'd definitely consider migrating to an open source system like Koha.

    We just migrated from an Open Source ILS to Apollo Biblionix, which provides much better integration for us. Now, our digital content and our ILL books are all processed through our ILS. When we had the open source ILS, we had to use 3 separate systems for those processes and there was no integration. We would only go back to that if necessary to do so due to cost.

    We already use Evergreen for our ILS which is an Open Source product through our state [...] consortium. We are satisfied and not looking for a different ILS or vendor.

    We love supporting an open source ILS and participating in the community surrounding it. We're working on ways to educate library staff on what the community does, how they benefit from it, and how they can give back to it if they want to.

    Open Source is free, easy to use for the librarian, and robust enough to do everything needed. But it needs either a tech guru or a hired programmer to keep on top of setting it up, upgrading it, and fixing bugs.

    We have FOLIO from EBSCO, but ByWater Solutions provides our support. This has been very successful and cost-effective way to manage and use open source systems with a limited staff.

    Our library is very pleased to have moved from a proprietary ILS to Koha, an open source solution. Our annual support costs decreased drastically; the responsiveness from our support vendor, ByWater Solutions, increased as well. ByWater is the best vendor I have ever worked with - they really care about their partner libraries by providing excellent support, training and a can-do attitude. The Koha community is very active in resolving bugs and implementing new features and enhancements. It's easy to get involved and make a difference in how Koha works.

    As a federal/government library, we are not permitted to consider open-source ILSs for security reasons.

    We are part of a consortium that uses a shared ILS between all members. Any decisions to be made about migration to another ILS, whether from another vendor or an open source product, would be a group decision, so it's difficult for our institution to answer the questions about migration and open source.

    ByWater has been a great partner! Open Source requires more engagement from libraries, but in return, we get more control and products that work for us.

    The unlikeliness of adopting an open source LMS is due to us being a small university library with only one systems librarian. We would need a more robust internal systems team with good knowledge of the LMS in order to provide a resilient and stable service. As things stand, we need a system with dedicated support.

    I would have concerns about an open source ILS due to the lack of support usually associated with open source products.

    We would only be able to implement an open source ILS if there was support provided by a third part company. We don't have the staff to manage it and even implementation would be challenging with our small staff.

    When considering open source software, we would not be equipped to self-support. We will only consider open source with a full-service vendor for migration, hosting, and support.

    We do not have IS systems support to administer an open source ILS.

    While open source may have been more of a possibility in the past, the competition for developer talent has made it difficult for higher education to compete with the corporate world with regards to salary and overall work flexibility. That will hamper any real consideration.

    Our library does not have a systems librarian, so we are limited in what we might want to choose in an open source system given our lack of technical/systems expertise.

    We would consider open source based on functionality and security, not solely the fact is open source.

    Open source library systems would be considered, but on-site personnel would be necessary.

    Still waiting for open source products to be a bit more developed before making a committment.

    Our campus IT has limited staff, and I have been advised on multiple occasions not to consider open source products because we do not have the staff across campus to support it.

    These comments provide insight into some of the perceived barriers that libraries are concernd with as they consider open source automation systems.

    Koha logo

    Koha

    top

    Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
    All Installations2207.84
    ByWater Solutions1337.92
    Independent237.92
    Equinox97.56
    Catalyst78.29

    Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

    As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 220 libraries using Koha responded to the survey.

    When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores across all Koha implementations were lower 2008 and 2009 than previous or subsequent years, due primarily to the low ratings from libraries using LibLime Koha, which had a strong presence in the US at that time. Since 2010 satisfaction scores given for all support arrangements for the community-supported Koha have steadily increased. Responses this year continued this trend of improved satisfaction.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Koha Responses by Sector
    KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2207.84 417.73147.643688.04147.36178.2968.33
    ILSFunctionality2197.74 417.54147.933687.91147.14178.2967.67
    PrintFunctionality2177.93 407.92147.713667.86147.36178.5768.33
    ElectronicFunctionality2046.42 395.77146.143616.93146.29166.8367.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2127.98 397.79148.072678.25147.93178.2968.33
    CompanyLoyalty2097.85 397.74128.082677.99147.50178.4368.83

    ByWater Solutions company profile

    ByWater Solutions

    top

    Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 133 responses included 79 public libraries, 27 academics, 5 consortia, 6 special libraries, and 6 schools.

    ByWater Solutions receives quite positive satisfaction scores despite its challenges of supporting a rapidly growing customer base of diverse types of libraries. Its clients increasingly include larger institutions which tend to be less likely to give highly positive ratings.

    ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries for : overall satisfaction (7.59), effectiveness for electronic resources (6.71), satisfaction with customer support (8.12), and company loyalty (7.76).

    Very small public libraries using Koha with support from ByWater Solutions gave second-highest ratings in most categories, with only Apollo, specifically developed for this category of libraries, receiving higher scores.

    ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small public libraries and small academic libraries.

    When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a gradual improvement since. Scores this year were mostly unchanged from last year. Libraries contracting with ByWater Solutions gave higher ratings for support than other categories. The narrative comments given were overwhelmingly positive.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Koha -- ByWater Solutions Responses by Sector
    Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1337.92 227.3221648.06127.33158.205
    ILSFunctionality1337.76 227.1821647.95127.00158.205
    PrintFunctionality1317.86 227.5521627.87127.25158.605
    ElectronicFunctionality1206.67 205.2021577.05126.50147.505
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1328.20 228.0921638.24127.92158.405
    CompanyLoyalty1328.02 227.9521637.98127.33158.605

    Evergreen

    top

    Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 77 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 85 were from public libraries, 9 from academics, and 9 from consortia. (see charts for library type and library size).

    The satisfaction ratings given from libraries using Evergreen have steadily improved since 2012, though there have been some dips along the way. This year's ratings were a bit down compared to last year. These libraries give higher scores for support than other categories (8.05). Satisfaction with Evergreen's capabilities for managing electronic resources was the lowest (5.81)

    Libraries using Evergreen rely an a variety of support arrangements. This year, 41 responses were from libraries working with Equinox Software for hosting and support services, 25 were from self-supported consortia, and 10 from consortia contracting with MOBIUS for hosting and support. Libraries associated with consortia that use Evergreen independently gave higher ratings than those working with a service provider. This difference may be partially associated with the goodwill toward thier own implementation and support efforts.

    The following table presents the 2022 survey results by library type and size

    2022 Evergreen Responses by Sector
    EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS777.77 200477.89116.820097.89
    ILSFunctionality777.73 200477.91116.730098.11
    PrintFunctionality778.00 200478.06117.000098.44
    ElectronicFunctionality735.81 200436.30114.640095.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport768.05 200467.98117.550098.11
    CompanyLoyalty757.61 200467.54117.270097.89

    Evergreen -- Equinox

    top

    Evergreen supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Evergreen, Koha, and other open source products.

    The satisfaction scores for Evergreen as supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative have been erratic for the last few years. Following last year's dramatically lower scores, results this year were improved, recovering to those seen in 2020. The lowest scores were given for electronic resource management. Two out of 41 responses (4.88%) indicated interest in changing systems or support providers.

    2022 Evergreen -- Equinox Responses by Sector
    Evergreen -- EquinoxallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS417.61 200247.8376.86003
    ILSFunctionality417.66 200248.0076.57003
    PrintFunctionality418.05 200248.2177.14003
    ElectronicFunctionality385.74 200216.4374.71003
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport417.83 200247.7977.00003
    CompanyLoyalty407.60 200247.6377.14003

    FOLIO

    top

    FOLIO logo

    FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data. See FOLIO: Momentum building with new wave of implementations published in Library Technology Newsletter for further information on FOLIO.

    FOLIO, following a four-year phase of development, saw production implementations beginning in 2019, with additional libraries moving into production since that time. This year 42 responses came from libraries using FOLIO, including 22 using EBSCO FOLIO supported by EBSCO Information Services, 2 using EBSCO FOLIO supported by ByWater Solutions, 7 using FOLIO with support from Index Data, and 1 using FOLIO supported by SCANBIT technology.

    FOLIO was mentioned in 40 narrative comments, including the following:

    When FOLIO is ready with a robust set of consortia tools and support, we would be likely to launch a RFP. (current ILS: Alma)

    Under consideration: Alma (Exlibris), but too expansive ; Folio - more accessible by price, but transition could be much more complicated. And our organization is connected in library network where many library are using Aleph. (Current ILS: Aleph)

    We considered FOLIO when searching for a new LMS, since we prefer open-source, but the product and the vendors who could support it were not robust enough at the time. We may consider moving to an open-source product in the future, but not for at least another 5 years. We chose ExLibris because they provided the most support and fit all the criteria we had. ExLibris struggled to adjust to implementing for a small institution with only 2-full time staff members. There are a lot of bells and whistles that rely on having someone dedicated to either running Alma/Primo completely, or being a specialist in certain fields (cataloging, acquisitions, etc). Scaling is an issue. However, the product has everything we need and we're slowly rolling it out as we go. (Current ILS: Alma)

    I would consider moving to FOLIO if I believed the functionality was on par with Alma, and if I believe I could manage it without being solely dedicated to working on the library services platform. (Current ILS: Alma)

    We have FOLIO from EBSCO, but ByWater Solutions provides our support. This has been very successful and cost-effective way to manage and use open source systems with a limited staff. (Current ILS EBSCO FOLIO supported by ByWater Solutions)

    We like FOLIO, but it is taking some getting used to.Since FOLIO is so young, some of the processes are not as usable as we would like them to be. It is radically different from our old system. As much as they like some aspects, my staff are finding it hard to give up their old ways of doing things. I do wish that it had its own OPAC. I want to be more involved in developing FOLIO, but I do not have the time right now. Bywater is amazing. (Current ILS EBSCO FOLIO supported by ByWater Solutions)

    My ratings are lower for FOLIO because we are doing a lot of the troubleshooting, workarounds, and improvements as we are early adopters. There are very few consortiums who have implemented FOLIO so there are many things that do not work correctly. My ratings are based completely on where FOLIO is at not what it will be in the future. The overall structure of FOLIO is far superior to anything we have ever worked with including its robust API backend. This time next year FOLIO ratings should be much hirer and our overall satisfaction should be higher. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    We are currently on FOLIO & are interested in moving to more open softwares and possibly self-hosting instead of hosting with a vendor (EBSCO). Our biggest pain point is the very small number of discovery layers that can present print materials alongside e-resource subscriptions; there are no open source options (though VuFind features are starting to get there), and Ex Libris will no longer sell Primo to non-Alma customers. We are VERY dissatisfied with EBSCO Discovery, but don't have better options. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    FOLIO is still rather new and therefore has areas in need for improvement. FOLIO generally works well for our print circulation and especially well for ERM. We have had no downtime since implementing 2019.

    Our library is currently moving to FOLIO, so some questions are not yet relevant. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    We've been fairly satisfied with the level of customer support that EBSCO has provided for FOLIO. As the product is still very much in development, we have had to create workarounds for some processes; however, we've been pleased with the features that have been released and look forward to seeing the direction that FOLIO takes in the future. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    We migrated to FOLIO on July 1, 2022 with the Lotus release. This system is evolving quickly but like any early adopters, we have improvements we wish to see made. We believe we made the right decision to support FOLIO but EDS is not a good public catalog, especially for print. We are working to move to VuFind for our catalog. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    FOLIO has an active community of librarians and developers working on improving its functionality. Even though currently the system is lacking a reporting APP, there are solutions through APIs. (Current ILS: EBSCO FOLIO)

    We remain only partially implemented with FOLIO and working under a schedule to complete implementation in summer 2024. There are outstanding issues of performance at scale for FOLIO, along with questions about sustainability of community-based development teams (as opposed to vendors who are providing hosting). (Current ILS: FOLIO supported by Index Data)

    We have been dissatisfied with Innovative (Sierra) since they were taken over by an investment group and have been acquired and reacquired--dissatisfied mostly with customer service and support rather than the technology itself. If we were to move to an open source ILS/LMS, we would definitely need support from a vendor (eg. the FOLIO-EBSCO relationship) as we have very sparse library technology support personnel. (CurrentILS: Sierra)

    We answered Not Likely to "Would the library consider working with this company again if it were to migrate to a new system in the future?" because Sierra is no longer being marketed to academic libraries. We would consider a different Clarivate/Proquest/Ex Libris/Innovative product in future migrations if it met our needs. We were actively involved in the [...] ILS RFP process and are looking forward to migrating to FOLIO because it is an eresource centered product, and eresource compose about 90% of our collection. (CurrentILS: Sierra)

    Likely migrating to FOLIO in 2024. Alma/Primo, FOLIO, and TIND were under consideration. A significant number of library staff were concerned with market consolidation and wanted to choose an ILS that would better align with the university's mission and values.

    Folio does not seem fully developed yet. We are considering migrating due to recurring performance issues with OCLC's WMS. It is my understanding that having developers on staff may be necessary for Folio libraries and we do not really have that so we do have some hesitations. We're happy enough with WMS but the Folio price point is appealing and lately WMS has been having several performance issues that are recurring.

    We are strongly considering a migration to FOLIO in the year 1-3 years.

    2022 FOLIO Responses by Sector
    FOLIOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS327.03 577.2976.1400002
    ILSFunctionality326.22 576.5775.4300002
    PrintFunctionality327.25 577.4376.5700002
    ElectronicFunctionality316.97 576.4376.7100001
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport327.13 577.4376.1400002
    CompanyLoyalty317.71 578.0067.0000002

    top

    Academic Discovery

    View the narrative comments given by responders
    about discovery services

    This year’s survey included a section on academic discovery services. This portion of the survey probes issues related to index-based discovery services, including Primo and Summon from Ex Libris, EBSCO Discovery Service, and WorldCat Discovery Service from OCLC. Each of these products is based on a large-scale index that addresses the general body of scholarly literature, including individual articles, book chapters, and other items.

    Many libraries use a different discovery interface than the one provided through the index-based product. The survey questions were concern primarily with the central index and associated search and retrieval technologies. All three major discovery services offers an API that enables their use through third-party interfaces. It’s common, for example, to implement VuFind or Blacklight as the patron interface and Primo or EBSCO Discovery Service to support article-level search. Although other combinations are possible, the vast majority of implementations are based on the interface packaged with the index-based product.

    Ex Libris offers two discovery services, Primo and Summon, both of which rely on a common Central Discovery Index. The user interface style and features for Primo and Summon differ substantially. Ex Libris also offers Primo VE, a version of the product that is deeply integrated with Alma. The survey does not differentiate between Primo and Primo VE.

    Although some other types of libraries responded, the results were limited to those from academic libraries. Primo received 364 responses, EBSCO Discovery Service received 225, WorldCat Discovery Service received 122, and Summon received 85, for a total of 636.

    Observations from the Discovery Survey Responses

    One set of questions addressed the effectiveness of the discovery service for different types of users, including undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members.

    • For all the major discovery services, responses generally indicated that they worked better for undergraduates than for graduate students or faculty members.
    • Summon and EBSCO Discovery Service received the highest ratings for undergraduate discovery with almost identical scores (7.17 / 7.14).
    • EBSCO Discovery Service and Primo received the highest ratings for discovery for graduate students, with almost identical scores (6.77 / 6.74)
    • Rankings for discovery for faculty members were not well differentiated (EDS: 6.81; Primo: 6.6; Summon: 6.59; WorldCat: 6.47).

    Another question asked about how well each product covered the library’s collections of resources.

    • Results show very little differentiation in how well the discovery services cover the library's collection (EDS: 7.13; Primo: 7.00; Summon: 6.96; WDS: 6.79)

    Libraries expect discovery services to be objective, without bias toward the content of any publisher or provider.

    • WorldCat Discovery Services scored slightly higher than the other discovery services
    • Scores for the others were not differentiated (Primo: 6.41; Summon: 6.40; EDS: 6.37)

    The survey also explored interest and use of the Open Discovery Initiative. When asked about the importance of ODI, libraries using WorldCat Discovery Service expressed the highest interest (7.09) followed by Primo (6.41), Summon (6.40), and EBSCO DIscovery Service (6.37). In last year's survey, libraries using OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service showed the lowest interest in ODI (4.71).

    Only a small portion of libraries used the ODI as they considered the selection of their discovery service. Libraries using Primo indicated the highest level of use (13.4%), followed by Summon (10.1%) and WorldCat Discovery Service (8.6%) and EBSCO Discovery Service (8.04).

    The following comments mentioned the Open Discovery Initiative:

    Never heard of NISO Open Discovery

    I had to look up the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. I like the idea, but migration from our current Discovery layer isn't feasible due to vendor exclusives.

    I have not looked into NISO Open Discovery Initiative but will now.

    While we value and feel the that NISO Open Discovery Initiative is important, we have not seen a discovery product that is not biased towards a vendor's own metadata and resources. We work to minimize this bias to the best of our ability in the backend of the discovery layer. We are a small shop and need to rely on a vendor for hosting, but we do let vendor's know that we would prefer the metadata to be openly available between competitors and that we would prefer a system that is not biased towards a vendor in particular.

    Admittedly, we are not that familiar the NISO Open Discovery Initiative

    We are not aware of NISO Open Discovery Initiative but this survey prompted me to take a look at that. Thank you.

    I can't give you a good response on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative as the decision about moving to Alma and Primo was made by our library consortium.

    What is the NISO Open Discovery Initiative?

    We have signed the NSIO Open Discovery Initiative and have incorporated into our selection process. We are hopeful that it makes a difference. The lack of rich EBSCO metadata from Proquest / ExLibris projects needs to be solved beyond the API solution they recommend.

    I am embarrassed to say that I don't know much about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative and it was not part of our decision-making when evaluating platforms. Our needs were for a next generation ILS and discovery platform that integrated well with ERM and provided enough functionality to be supported by our small staff. Open source options were not an option for us due to our limited capacity for supporting platforms that do not provide "out of the box" functionality.

    The NISO Open Discovery Initiative is not very well known in the German speaking community.

    Have not rated NISO open discovery because we have not looked at it. I was kind of aware of it but it didn't cross my mind at the timeof procurement

    Unfortunately we didn't know about NISO ODI prior to the decision for Primo. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction:

    Marshall Breeding's work (with others) with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative is very important, but was not available when we implemented, as we are long-term customers of Summon.

    Hope that NISO Open Discovery Initiative forces vendors into a better compliance with metadata consistency.

    Do not have adequate information on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative

    Effectiveness for Undergraduates

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates (2022)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Summon80 2 1 3 10 31 25 8 77.177 0.67
    EBSCO Discovery Service225 2 1 9 12 35 69 63 34 77.147 0.60
    Primo364 1 1 4 5 8 23 58 144 104 16 76.887 0.42
    WorldCat Discovery Service118 4 11 9 21 40 25 8 76.607 0.55
    All Responses887 6 2 7 14 33 52 138 315 235 85 76.917 0.24

    Effectiveness for Graduate Students

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students (2022)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service203 4 2 4 7 20 28 68 43 27 76.777 0.63
    Primo338 3 1 3 5 9 31 58 121 94 13 76.747 0.44
    Summon80 2 1 4 8 16 22 20 7 76.657 0.45
    WorldCat Discovery Service117 2 1 2 3 9 11 22 34 24 9 76.397 0.55
    All Responses832 18 5 7 14 35 76 132 274 202 69 76.647 0.28

    Effectiveness for Faculty Members

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members (2022)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service232 2 1 2 2 11 23 40 68 52 31 76.817 0.59
    Primo365 1 2 9 14 32 74 136 85 12 76.667 0.42
    Summon83 1 2 3 12 14 28 17 6 76.597 0.22
    WorldCat Discovery Service122 1 2 4 13 11 20 33 28 10 76.477 0.54
    All Responses897 6 5 8 17 50 84 162 287 201 77 76.667 0.27

    Coverage of library resources

    Statistics related to the question: Coverage of library resources (2022)

    Coverage of library resources Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service233 2 4 5 10 37 79 64 32 77.137 0.59
    Primo370 1 1 6 5 29 49 145 112 22 77.007 0.36
    Summon85 1 1 8 16 29 21 9 76.967 0.11
    WorldCat Discovery Service122 1 3 2 3 9 20 45 27 12 76.797 0.54
    All Responses906 4 3 9 14 17 65 131 320 247 96 76.987 0.23

    Objectivity of Discovery Services

    Statistics related to the question: Objectivity of the Discovery Service (2022)

    Objectivity of the Discovery Service Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    WorldCat Discovery Service121 3 1 3 2 12 13 23 39 25 87.098 0.55
    Primo363 6 4 6 8 18 44 73 105 70 29 76.417 0.47
    Summon82 2 3 4 11 18 20 19 5 76.407 0.00
    EBSCO Discovery Service232 1 6 10 16 38 41 53 38 29 76.377 0.53
    All Responses889 11 8 15 28 46 112 156 215 182 116 76.537 0.17

    Importance of Open Discovery Initiative

    Statistics related to the question: Objectivity of the Discovery Service (2022)

    Objectivity of the Discovery Service Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    WorldCat Discovery Service121 3 1 3 2 12 13 23 39 25 87.098 0.55
    Primo363 6 4 6 8 18 44 73 105 70 29 76.417 0.47
    Summon82 2 3 4 11 18 20 19 5 76.407 0.00
    EBSCO Discovery Service232 1 6 10 16 38 41 53 38 29 76.377 0.53
    All Responses889 11 8 15 28 46 112 156 215 182 116 76.537 0.17

    Open Discovery Initiative

    Used Open Discovery Initiative for Discovery Selection
    Discovery ServiceTotal ResponsesUsed ODIpercent
    EBSCO Discovery Service286 238.04%
    Primo352 4713.35%
    Summon79 810.13%
    WorldCat Discovery Service128 118.59%
    All Responses1,065 979.11%

    EBSCO Discovery Service Statistics

    2022 EBSCO Discovery Service Responses by Sector
    EBSCO Discovery ServiceallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery2257.14 827.39557.27256.2820053
    GraduateDiscovery2036.77 647.06567.00246.0020053
    FacultyDiscovery2326.81 817.16566.75245.7520053
    DiscoveryCoverage2337.13 827.27547.22256.8821043
    DiscoveryObjectivity2326.37 806.17556.69255.6420053
    ODIimportance1765.66 645.56425.86175.8210043

    Primo

    2022 Primo Responses by Sector
    PrimoallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery3646.88 976.851067.00906.82100097.33
    GraduateDiscovery3386.74 756.791026.83906.62100096.56
    FacultyDiscovery3656.66 966.831076.74896.39000096.22
    DiscoveryCoverage3707.00 987.101057.04896.92000087.13
    DiscoveryObjectivity3636.41 966.161056.46886.55000096.22
    ODIimportance3035.42 664.56946.01775.66000095.22

    Summon

    2022 Summon Responses by Sector
    SummonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery807.17 217.00267.27167.7500000
    GraduateDiscovery806.65 206.55266.58157.2700000
    FacultyDiscovery836.59 226.73266.46166.8100000
    DiscoveryCoverage856.96 226.82267.04167.0000000
    DiscoveryObjectivity826.40 215.86266.62156.6700000
    ODIimportance665.35 175.35195.11146.2900000

    WorldCat Discovery Service

    2022 WorldCat Discovery Service Responses by Sector
    WorldCat Discovery ServiceallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery1186.60 536.43326.84410011
    GraduateDiscovery1176.39 516.35316.48410011
    FacultyDiscovery1226.47 546.43326.34410011
    DiscoveryCoverage1226.79 546.87316.77410011
    DiscoveryObjectivity1217.09 537.06317.32410011
    ODIimportance1005.09 415.05265.27400011


    Selected Statistical Tables

    Emphasis on Peer Groups

    top

    Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

    Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

    This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

    Public Libraries

    top

    Large Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris22 1 1 8 8 4 77.558 1.71
    Symphony28 1 1 1 1 1 8 10 5 87.118 1.13
    Sierra22 2 2 7 7 2 2 66.417 1.07
    All Responses95 2 2 2 3 3 10 32 28 13 76.997 0.10

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony28 3 5 6 10 4 87.258 1.13
    Polaris22 1 1 2 8 8 2 77.187 1.71
    Sierra22 1 1 4 5 5 5 1 66.417 1.07
    All Responses95 1 1 2 1 8 16 28 31 7 86.917 0.10

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris22 2 4 8 8 88.008 1.71
    Symphony28 2 2 6 12 6 87.648 1.13
    Sierra22 3 6 4 6 3 67.007 1.28
    All Responses95 1 1 5 13 20 35 20 87.448 0.10

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris22 1 1 5 8 7 76.777 1.49
    Symphony28 1 1 3 1 4 3 8 6 1 75.897 1.13
    Sierra22 2 1 2 4 4 4 3 2 44.865 0.21
    All Responses94 1 4 2 6 9 11 17 22 20 2 75.866 0.10

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony28 1 2 6 9 10 97.578 1.32
    Polaris22 2 4 2 9 5 87.508 1.71
    Sierra22 2 2 6 4 6 2 66.557 0.43
    All Responses95 2 3 1 2 6 11 14 31 25 87.208 0.21

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Public libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris22 3 2 4 6 7 97.558 1.71
    Sierra22 1 1 2 1 2 5 4 6 96.777 1.49
    Symphony28 2 2 1 1 1 5 9 7 86.578 1.32
    All Responses95 4 2 3 4 6 4 18 24 30 97.048 0.00

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 5 6 4 87.598 1.94
    Polaris55 2 1 1 4 21 17 9 77.337 0.67
    Library.Solution22 1 1 5 6 5 4 77.097 1.28
    Symphony74 1 2 2 7 7 22 25 8 86.967 0.81
    Sierra45 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 16 12 5 76.717 1.04
    Horizon19 1 1 4 9 3 1 76.587 1.61
    All Responses301 2 2 5 6 8 17 33 94 93 41 77.037 0.46

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris55 1 1 2 4 11 23 13 87.628 0.67
    Library.Solution22 1 4 6 7 4 87.328 1.28
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 3 4 7 2 87.298 1.94
    Symphony74 1 1 5 5 9 30 16 7 76.787 0.70
    Horizon19 1 1 4 8 4 1 76.637 1.61
    Sierra45 1 1 4 1 1 9 10 14 4 86.567 1.19
    All Responses302 3 4 9 11 11 42 89 93 40 87.007 0.46

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris55 1 1 1 14 20 18 87.898 0.67
    Library.Solution22 1 2 3 11 5 87.738 1.28
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 6 3 6 77.718 2.18
    Sierra45 1 1 2 4 8 18 11 87.518 1.19
    Symphony74 1 1 1 2 5 21 30 13 87.458 0.81
    Horizon19 1 3 5 8 2 87.268 1.61
    All Responses302 1 1 1 6 3 9 24 72 113 72 87.548 0.40

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 3 2 7 2 2 76.717 1.70
    Library.Solution22 1 3 3 4 5 5 1 76.147 1.28
    Horizon19 1 1 4 7 3 3 65.956 1.61
    Symphony72 3 2 3 2 6 6 15 17 12 6 75.936 0.00
    Polaris55 3 3 4 1 10 7 15 6 6 75.896 0.40
    Sierra45 5 5 4 2 7 8 7 5 2 64.895 1.19
    All Responses300 12 8 15 14 21 44 56 62 43 25 75.746 0.40

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 4 4 8 98.128 1.94
    Library.Solution21 3 7 4 7 77.578 1.96
    Symphony73 1 1 1 2 2 3 18 23 22 87.518 0.59
    Horizon19 1 2 6 6 4 77.428 1.84
    Polaris54 1 1 1 2 5 6 15 11 12 76.947 0.54
    Sierra45 2 2 1 1 2 1 13 7 13 3 66.187 1.04
    All Responses296 4 4 2 5 7 17 30 66 86 75 87.238 0.52

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Public libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 1 2 2 10 97.769 2.18
    Horizon18 1 1 1 8 4 3 77.117 1.65
    Polaris55 1 1 1 9 4 15 8 16 97.027 0.67
    Sierra45 1 1 1 3 2 5 12 12 8 76.767 1.04
    Library.Solution22 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 5 96.687 1.92
    Symphony72 5 2 1 2 2 7 4 11 21 17 86.608 0.59
    All Responses298 9 6 7 7 5 29 24 60 65 86 96.938 0.41

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo24 1 4 7 12 98.259 1.84
    Evergreen -- Equinox15 1 1 1 6 6 88.008 2.32
    Atriuum26 1 1 7 6 11 97.928 1.77
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 3 7 8 15 97.918 1.37
    Polaris34 1 1 13 8 11 77.658 1.54
    VERSO41 1 3 1 14 12 10 77.548 1.09
    Library.Solution22 2 3 8 5 4 77.277 1.07
    Sierra20 1 2 2 8 4 3 76.957 2.01
    Symphony46 1 2 3 3 4 16 11 6 76.677 1.03
    All Responses312 1 3 3 3 5 14 19 90 86 88 77.478 0.45

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Evergreen -- Equinox15 2 1 3 9 98.279 2.32
    Apollo24 2 4 8 10 98.088 1.84
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 3 5 13 12 87.888 1.37
    Atriuum26 4 1 3 5 13 97.859 1.77
    Polaris34 1 2 12 10 9 77.688 1.54
    VERSO40 2 1 2 10 15 10 87.638 1.11
    Library.Solution22 1 1 4 6 6 4 77.187 1.07
    Sierra20 3 2 8 4 3 77.107 2.01
    Symphony46 1 1 2 4 6 16 9 7 76.787 1.03
    All Responses311 1 2 3 8 14 28 76 92 87 87.508 0.45

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Evergreen -- Equinox15 2 5 8 98.409 2.32
    Apollo24 1 1 10 12 98.389 1.84
    Atriuum26 4 12 10 88.238 1.77
    Polaris34 1 7 13 13 88.068 1.54
    VERSO40 1 3 11 13 12 87.708 1.11
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 1 3 5 11 13 97.688 1.37
    Library.Solution22 2 1 7 7 5 77.558 1.07
    Sierra19 1 2 2 2 7 5 87.378 2.06
    Symphony46 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 16 8 87.048 1.03
    All Responses310 3 1 2 2 7 11 12 61 109 102 87.698 0.40

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo22 1 2 5 5 9 97.868 1.92
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 2 3 6 5 8 6 86.947 1.08
    VERSO40 1 1 6 6 3 7 7 9 96.587 1.11
    Atriuum26 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 8 96.277 1.77
    Symphony46 1 3 1 2 10 9 9 2 9 56.026 1.03
    Library.Solution19 1 1 1 1 4 1 6 3 1 75.747 0.92
    Polaris33 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 10 3 4 75.707 1.22
    Sierra20 1 2 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 45.205 2.01
    All Responses297 11 6 10 9 24 36 38 61 45 57 76.257 0.46

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo24 1 1 5 17 98.589 1.84
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 6 6 19 98.219 1.22
    VERSO40 1 2 6 15 16 98.008 1.26
    Atriuum25 2 1 6 3 13 97.849 1.80
    Evergreen -- Equinox15 1 2 1 2 9 97.679 2.32
    Library.Solution22 3 4 3 6 6 87.368 1.07
    Symphony46 1 1 3 3 4 12 9 13 97.117 1.03
    Polaris33 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 97.037 0.87
    Sierra19 1 1 4 5 2 3 3 66.376 2.06
    All Responses306 1 5 5 11 22 25 50 65 122 97.518 0.40

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo24 1 4 6 13 98.259 1.84
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 2 1 1 2 5 23 97.889 1.37
    Evergreen -- Equinox15 1 1 1 4 8 97.879 2.32
    Atriuum26 1 2 2 3 7 11 97.778 1.57
    VERSO41 1 1 1 4 12 10 12 77.468 1.09
    Library.Solution22 1 1 4 2 4 3 7 97.007 1.07
    Polaris34 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 10 10 86.858 1.37
    Symphony44 2 3 2 4 2 16 7 8 76.437 1.06
    Sierra20 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 3 85.306 2.01
    All Responses306 11 5 4 8 7 25 15 54 68 109 97.138 0.51

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo49 1 5 10 33 98.539 1.00
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 5 8 11 98.258 1.63
    Polaris23 4 7 4 8 97.708 1.25
    Atriuum30 2 1 1 1 4 9 12 97.638 1.10
    VERSO67 4 1 2 7 17 20 16 87.338 0.86
    Symphony22 2 1 6 9 4 87.188 1.49
    All Responses289 1 2 9 8 9 18 54 86 102 97.628 0.47

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo49 1 6 9 33 98.499 1.00
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 1 3 10 9 88.048 1.63
    Polaris22 3 4 6 9 97.958 1.28
    Atriuum30 2 1 2 5 6 14 97.708 1.10
    VERSO67 2 3 3 8 8 24 19 87.468 0.98
    Symphony22 2 1 6 7 6 87.238 1.49
    All Responses288 1 2 5 9 11 22 46 89 103 97.658 0.47

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo48 2 4 10 32 98.509 1.01
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 2 11 7 87.958 1.71
    VERSO67 2 1 7 15 23 19 87.648 0.98
    Polaris22 2 3 3 7 7 87.648 1.28
    Symphony22 1 1 1 6 7 6 87.558 1.49
    Atriuum29 2 4 1 5 7 10 97.008 1.11
    All Responses283 3 1 3 12 6 20 46 88 104 97.678 0.53

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo47 3 1 2 6 7 28 97.819 0.88
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 4 2 2 4 7 97.158 1.12
    Polaris22 2 2 4 4 4 6 97.097 1.28
    VERSO64 4 1 2 2 8 9 6 17 15 86.598 1.00
    Symphony22 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 7 96.557 1.49
    Atriuum28 2 2 1 1 2 2 6 5 7 96.297 1.13
    All Responses274 16 5 2 10 10 24 30 43 57 77 96.687 0.42

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo47 1 4 9 33 98.499 1.02
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 2 1 6 14 98.179 1.63
    VERSO66 2 2 3 5 8 19 27 97.678 0.98
    Atriuum30 1 1 2 3 4 4 15 97.479 1.10
    Polaris21 2 1 1 4 8 5 87.438 1.09
    Symphony22 1 1 2 1 6 4 7 97.148 1.49
    All Responses282 1 3 6 5 3 15 19 38 71 121 97.648 0.48

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Very Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo49 2 3 4 6 34 98.379 1.00
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 1 1 1 2 8 10 97.918 1.67
    Atriuum30 2 1 3 1 2 6 15 97.309 0.91
    Symphony22 1 1 1 6 5 8 97.238 1.49
    Polaris22 1 1 3 5 7 5 87.058 1.07
    VERSO66 3 3 1 9 5 10 16 19 96.888 0.86
    All Responses284 14 2 5 4 2 27 15 38 73 104 97.198 0.30

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo84 2 10 22 50 98.439 0.76
    Evergreen -- Independent18 1 2 8 7 88.118 1.89
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions79 1 1 4 18 23 32 97.968 0.90
    Atriuum67 2 2 1 4 11 21 26 97.798 0.98
    Evergreen -- Equinox32 2 3 7 12 8 87.668 1.59
    Polaris140 1 3 2 2 9 50 40 33 77.498 0.42
    VERSO114 5 2 6 9 33 33 26 77.338 0.66
    Spydus16 2 1 5 8 87.198 2.00
    Library.Solution54 1 1 5 8 16 15 8 77.117 0.82
    Carl.X18 2 2 2 4 4 4 77.007 2.12
    Symphony183 2 5 6 7 11 14 53 60 25 86.897 0.52
    Horizon37 2 1 1 1 4 16 9 3 76.787 1.32
    Sierra95 1 1 2 3 2 7 14 32 22 11 76.747 0.92
    All Responses1041 3 10 13 22 24 45 84 278 308 254 87.328 0.25

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo85 1 3 11 22 48 98.339 0.76
    Evergreen -- Independent18 1 4 7 6 88.008 1.89
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions79 1 1 1 7 13 32 24 87.818 0.90
    Atriuum67 2 1 4 4 12 13 31 97.788 0.98
    Evergreen -- Equinox32 1 4 7 9 11 97.728 1.59
    Polaris139 2 2 4 11 38 48 34 87.608 0.42
    VERSO113 3 5 7 10 19 40 29 87.428 0.75
    Spydus16 3 5 8 87.318 2.00
    Library.Solution54 2 1 2 9 13 19 8 87.208 0.82
    Symphony183 2 2 3 1 8 12 23 59 47 26 76.917 0.44
    Horizon37 2 1 7 14 10 3 76.867 1.32
    Carl.X18 3 1 2 5 5 2 76.787 2.12
    Sierra95 1 1 5 3 8 17 25 26 9 86.687 0.92
    All Responses1040 5 4 7 19 30 49 113 247 319 247 87.338 0.25

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo84 4 5 25 50 98.449 0.76
    Evergreen -- Independent18 2 4 2 10 98.009 2.12
    Evergreen -- Equinox32 1 1 6 13 11 88.008 1.59
    Polaris139 1 1 3 8 30 49 47 87.888 0.42
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions77 1 1 1 1 5 13 28 27 87.798 0.91
    Atriuum66 2 4 2 10 21 27 97.718 0.86
    Spydus16 2 4 7 3 87.698 2.25
    VERSO113 3 2 3 9 26 39 31 87.608 0.75
    Library.Solution54 2 4 3 12 23 10 87.488 0.82
    Symphony183 2 2 1 2 3 8 12 47 71 35 87.368 0.52
    Sierra94 1 1 2 7 13 16 35 19 87.328 0.93
    Carl.X18 1 1 3 4 4 5 97.288 2.12
    Horizon37 1 2 5 11 14 4 87.057 1.15
    All Responses1034 7 5 3 12 22 33 78 203 363 308 87.618 0.28

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo81 3 3 6 12 15 42 97.819 0.67
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions72 1 1 3 10 10 14 16 17 97.037 0.59
    Atriuum65 4 2 1 3 4 5 7 10 9 20 96.437 0.87
    VERSO110 6 2 1 3 9 14 12 13 26 24 86.427 0.76
    Polaris138 2 4 6 6 6 15 23 38 21 17 76.227 0.26
    Horizon37 2 1 2 6 10 7 6 3 66.196 1.32
    Evergreen -- Equinox29 2 1 2 7 2 4 8 3 86.107 1.49
    Evergreen -- Independent17 2 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 86.007 0.97
    Symphony181 7 8 6 7 9 23 30 40 26 25 75.997 0.00
    Spydus16 1 2 1 5 5 2 65.886 1.50
    Library.Solution51 2 1 2 2 6 8 6 13 9 2 75.736 0.84
    Carl.X16 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 65.566 2.25
    Sierra95 7 2 8 7 11 14 14 16 11 5 75.075 0.92
    All Responses1009 42 25 32 40 65 122 147 194 171 171 76.177 0.22

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo82 1 1 1 6 17 56 98.489 0.77
    Evergreen -- Independent17 1 6 10 98.479 1.94
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions78 1 1 4 11 17 44 98.219 0.91
    Atriuum66 1 1 2 3 3 13 8 35 97.769 1.11
    VERSO112 1 2 2 1 5 5 16 37 43 97.728 0.76
    Evergreen -- Equinox32 1 2 2 2 10 15 97.668 1.59
    Horizon36 1 2 4 10 9 10 77.478 1.17
    Library.Solution53 1 7 6 10 15 14 87.348 1.24
    Symphony182 4 2 3 7 8 11 43 49 55 97.328 0.37
    Carl.X18 2 2 5 4 5 77.228 2.12
    Polaris135 1 2 4 4 12 16 28 36 32 87.118 0.34
    Sierra94 2 3 4 1 3 7 26 17 23 8 66.307 0.93
    Spydus16 1 5 3 3 4 56.006 1.25
    All Responses1022 9 7 16 17 23 62 91 175 268 354 97.438 0.25

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Public libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo85 5 3 9 13 55 98.299 0.76
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions78 2 2 1 1 2 2 7 15 46 97.909 0.91
    Evergreen -- Independent17 1 1 1 2 3 9 97.659 1.94
    Atriuum67 2 1 1 7 3 6 14 33 97.608 0.86
    Evergreen -- Equinox32 1 1 3 2 3 9 13 97.568 1.59
    Horizon34 1 1 2 2 12 7 9 77.327 1.20
    Carl.X18 2 2 2 1 4 7 97.118 2.12
    Spydus15 2 1 3 7 2 87.078 2.32
    Polaris138 3 2 1 3 2 21 6 30 32 38 97.038 0.43
    VERSO113 3 2 3 3 11 10 23 26 32 97.018 0.66
    Library.Solution54 1 2 2 2 7 7 9 12 12 86.677 1.22
    Symphony179 10 8 2 5 6 13 8 40 45 42 86.607 0.37
    Sierra95 6 1 2 6 3 7 9 22 22 17 76.397 0.92
    All Responses1026 38 16 16 24 21 89 64 179 240 339 97.078 0.16

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Academic Libraries

    top

    Large Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma99 3 4 16 57 18 1 76.877 0.80
    Sierra26 3 4 9 8 2 66.086 0.98
    All Responses166 2 3 10 13 28 81 27 2 76.547 0.62

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma99 2 2 4 20 45 22 4 76.887 0.60
    Sierra26 8 4 6 6 2 45.626 0.78
    All Responses166 2 7 15 16 33 63 26 4 76.317 0.47

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Sierra26 1 3 15 5 2 77.157 1.37
    Alma99 3 4 12 43 31 6 77.147 0.80
    All Responses166 1 3 7 20 71 49 15 77.197 0.62

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma99 1 2 3 7 16 40 26 4 76.817 0.80
    Sierra26 1 2 3 4 7 5 3 1 54.775 0.39
    All Responses166 3 8 10 9 20 31 50 30 5 76.067 0.62

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Sierra26 3 1 2 3 5 10 2 75.696 0.59
    Alma99 1 1 2 7 11 18 25 21 11 2 65.696 0.80
    All Responses165 1 1 5 9 18 27 36 38 23 7 75.906 0.62

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Large Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma99 2 1 1 4 2 13 14 30 23 9 76.547 0.90
    Sierra25 1 1 2 2 5 4 8 1 1 75.406 1.40
    All Responses163 6 3 4 5 7 22 19 45 33 19 76.317 0.70

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony17 1 1 2 4 4 5 97.418 2.18
    Alma120 1 1 9 10 53 35 11 77.177 0.73
    WorldShare Management Services33 1 1 4 4 13 8 2 76.797 1.04
    Sierra49 2 2 1 4 4 5 9 19 3 75.476 1.00
    All Responses263 4 4 2 8 9 21 28 100 60 27 76.717 0.43

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony17 1 1 2 4 4 5 97.418 2.18
    Alma120 1 8 13 46 40 12 77.257 0.73
    WorldShare Management Services33 1 3 2 3 9 11 4 86.977 1.04
    Sierra49 1 7 3 6 10 15 5 2 75.886 1.00
    All Responses263 1 4 9 10 20 37 83 71 28 76.847 0.43

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony17 1 5 5 6 97.948 2.18
    Alma120 1 1 4 12 35 49 18 87.468 0.73
    WorldShare Management Services33 1 2 5 8 10 7 87.368 1.04
    Sierra49 1 4 6 13 18 7 87.318 1.00
    All Responses263 1 1 1 6 11 27 71 95 50 87.438 0.43

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma120 1 2 4 5 18 37 38 15 87.137 0.73
    WorldShare Management Services33 1 1 1 6 10 11 3 87.067 1.04
    Symphony17 1 1 3 2 4 2 4 76.657 2.18
    Sierra49 2 4 7 6 5 10 5 8 2 54.245 1.00
    All Responses263 7 5 10 14 14 22 38 64 65 24 86.257 0.37

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony17 2 2 2 11 98.189 2.18
    WorldShare Management Services33 1 1 3 4 7 12 5 87.098 1.04
    Alma120 2 2 6 6 17 32 33 18 4 76.136 0.73
    Sierra47 1 3 2 3 5 4 9 9 8 3 65.626 1.02
    All Responses260 2 6 4 9 13 27 51 62 54 32 76.497 0.50

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Medium-sized Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony17 1 1 1 3 5 6 97.418 2.18
    Alma117 1 2 3 9 13 38 28 23 77.167 0.83
    WorldShare Management Services33 4 1 1 2 2 5 10 8 86.618 1.04
    Sierra49 4 2 2 3 9 10 7 8 1 3 54.785 0.86
    All Responses258 8 7 4 6 14 22 25 59 57 56 76.677 0.50

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS17 2 2 13 98.659 2.18
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 3 4 7 6 87.328 1.71
    WorldShare Management Services52 1 1 2 5 23 14 6 77.157 1.25
    Alma112 1 2 1 3 14 53 33 5 77.057 0.66
    Sierra39 1 1 1 3 9 10 9 2 3 65.726 1.44
    Symphony24 1 1 4 1 1 4 8 4 75.427 1.43
    All Responses352 4 3 9 10 4 21 41 122 90 48 76.897 0.16

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS17 2 6 9 98.419 1.94
    Alma112 1 2 1 5 11 33 39 20 87.378 0.66
    WorldShare Management Services52 1 4 6 20 13 8 77.237 1.25
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 3 5 8 4 87.188 1.49
    Sierra39 1 1 1 1 6 14 9 2 4 66.136 1.44
    Symphony24 1 3 1 1 7 8 2 1 75.716 1.43
    All Responses352 1 4 7 7 8 22 51 94 98 60 87.017 0.16

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS17 4 13 98.769 2.18
    WorldShare Management Services49 1 6 13 15 14 87.698 1.29
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 2 1 2 11 6 87.558 1.71
    Alma110 1 1 1 1 7 33 50 16 87.548 0.67
    Sierra39 1 1 1 3 7 7 11 8 86.977 1.44
    Symphony24 1 1 1 4 3 6 5 3 76.507 1.84
    All Responses345 1 2 3 6 4 11 30 76 128 84 87.508 0.16

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS16 1 6 7 2 87.258 2.00
    WorldShare Management Services52 1 3 7 18 16 7 77.237 1.25
    Alma110 2 1 1 2 6 17 31 39 11 87.057 0.67
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 5 3 1 75.206 0.45
    Sierra39 2 6 6 4 3 9 4 2 3 64.775 1.44
    Symphony24 4 1 1 4 4 3 3 2 2 03.924 1.02
    All Responses345 15 13 15 14 19 23 47 82 84 33 86.097 0.16

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS15 1 1 6 7 98.208 2.07
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 5 4 12 98.099 1.49
    Symphony24 2 1 2 8 5 6 77.137 1.84
    WorldShare Management Services52 2 2 2 11 11 13 11 87.087 1.25
    Alma110 4 7 6 18 18 26 25 6 76.217 0.48
    Sierra37 2 1 3 2 3 8 11 3 4 75.896 0.99
    All Responses344 3 6 6 11 17 28 43 70 86 74 86.867 0.38

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    Small Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS17 1 1 4 11 98.479 1.94
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 2 6 12 97.959 1.71
    WorldShare Management Services52 1 1 1 3 7 11 16 12 87.298 1.25
    Alma110 3 1 1 2 6 11 13 24 29 20 86.787 0.67
    Symphony24 5 1 3 5 2 5 3 05.426 1.84
    Sierra39 3 2 2 2 11 8 5 2 4 55.285 1.44
    All Responses348 17 4 3 9 10 36 38 63 80 88 96.787 0.00

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS29 2 2 25 98.799 1.67
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 1 3 4 9 7 87.448 1.60
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 1 9 7 2 77.407 1.57
    Alma347 2 2 6 16 40 171 93 17 77.057 0.38
    WorldShare Management Services93 1 2 2 8 9 40 23 8 76.957 0.62
    Symphony52 1 2 4 4 2 6 16 11 6 76.277 0.97
    Sierra115 3 3 2 7 7 18 28 36 8 3 75.716 0.65
    All Responses825 8 9 12 22 26 56 98 317 191 86 76.787 0.24

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS29 2 11 16 98.489 1.49
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 1 3 6 10 4 87.248 1.40
    Alma347 1 1 4 3 17 44 135 106 36 77.187 0.38
    WorldShare Management Services93 3 4 8 11 30 25 12 76.987 0.62
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 2 7 7 2 1 66.507 1.57
    Symphony52 1 3 2 3 2 9 17 9 6 76.427 0.97
    Sierra114 1 2 8 12 16 30 30 9 6 65.906 0.66
    All Responses824 1 5 14 23 35 59 123 257 208 99 76.837 0.24

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS29 5 24 98.839 1.67
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 2 1 3 12 7 87.608 1.60
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 2 7 6 4 77.508 1.57
    WorldShare Management Services90 1 2 2 12 24 28 21 87.498 0.63
    Alma345 2 1 5 9 31 120 136 41 87.398 0.38
    Symphony51 1 1 1 5 4 13 14 12 87.248 1.26
    Sierra115 1 1 1 1 8 16 35 35 17 77.177 0.65
    All Responses817 2 2 4 8 16 29 78 232 284 162 87.428 0.24

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS26 1 9 14 2 87.428 1.57
    WorldShare Management Services93 2 1 2 5 15 28 30 10 87.057 0.62
    Alma345 3 2 5 9 18 55 112 110 31 77.027 0.38
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 1 1 1 5 9 2 86.908 1.34
    Symphony52 4 1 2 5 6 7 9 7 6 5 65.296 0.69
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 1 75.266 0.42
    Sierra115 4 5 15 15 13 20 19 16 5 3 54.575 0.65
    All Responses815 23 23 34 39 42 69 120 205 196 64 76.167 0.21

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS27 1 1 11 14 98.379 1.54
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 6 5 13 98.089 1.40
    Symphony52 2 3 4 13 11 19 97.568 1.25
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 4 1 5 6 3 87.007 1.79
    WorldShare Management Services93 1 2 1 5 6 15 21 26 16 86.967 0.62
    Alma345 1 7 5 23 25 54 76 84 58 12 76.016 0.43
    Sierra111 3 4 5 7 9 10 23 30 13 7 75.736 0.66
    All Responses813 6 13 17 32 50 83 135 178 178 121 76.557 0.28

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    All Academic libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS29 1 1 9 18 98.529 1.67
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 1 3 6 14 98.009 1.60
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services20 1 1 1 4 6 7 97.658 1.79
    WorldShare Management Services93 1 4 2 2 2 6 9 18 28 21 86.948 0.62
    Alma342 6 3 2 8 12 33 43 96 85 54 76.847 0.38
    Symphony52 7 1 1 5 6 8 12 12 86.297 1.25
    Sierra114 8 5 4 5 13 27 19 21 4 8 55.095 0.56
    All Responses812 31 15 13 20 33 81 87 174 186 172 86.677 0.28

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School Libraries

    top

    School libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS182 1 1 1 9 170 98.899 0.67
    Destiny73 1 2 1 5 7 16 23 18 87.298 1.05
    All Responses285 1 3 2 7 12 27 39 194 98.309 0.41

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

    top

    Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS181 1 1 1 29 149 98.799 0.67
    Destiny73 2 1 1 6 7 19 19 18 77.268 0.82
    All Responses284 2 1 2 9 12 28 57 173 98.249 0.42

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS181 1 2 8 170 98.929 0.67
    Destiny73 2 1 3 7 13 23 24 97.628 0.82
    All Responses284 2 2 4 11 20 41 204 98.469 0.53

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS165 1 1 2 2 20 70 69 88.168 0.70
    Destiny71 3 3 4 4 4 6 5 19 14 9 75.997 0.59
    All Responses264 5 4 7 6 5 11 12 46 88 80 87.318 0.31

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS181 1 24 156 98.849 0.67
    Destiny72 1 2 1 2 7 4 11 22 22 87.258 0.82
    All Responses282 1 2 1 2 5 8 5 14 50 194 98.319 0.54

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

    School libraries: Company Loyalty

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2022)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS177 2 16 159 98.829 0.68
    Destiny71 1 1 2 3 8 4 10 20 22 97.138 1.07
    All Responses278 3 3 2 3 9 10 13 42 193 98.229 0.48

    Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



    An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


    ILS Turnover Reports

    Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2022 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

    The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2022 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

    The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2022 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


    Details about The Survey

    top

    The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

    Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

    • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
    • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
    • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
    • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
    • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
    • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

    A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

    view automation survey

    Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

    The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

    The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

    View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

    In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

    The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.

    A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

    The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

    The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

    In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

    Statistics

    top

    To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

    In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

    For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

    • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
    • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
    • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
    • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
    • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
    • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

    The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

    The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

    • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
    • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

    [The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


    Caveat

    As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.


    views: 10688

    Mobile device